Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants Phusa Ram, Govind Ram, Magga Ram, Asha Ram and Anna Ram against the Judgment dated 30th September, 2002 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner convicting them for offence under Section 302/149, IPC sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The fine collected from the non-SC/ST appellants Phusa Ram, Asha Ram and Anna Ram which comes to Rs. 6,000/-has been directed to be paid to the wife of the deceased PW. 5 Mst. Shanti. The appellants have also been convicted for offence under Section 148 and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 341 IPC each of them have been sentenced to one month simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24th July, 1998 at about 1:00 a.m., PW. 5 Mst. Shanti wife of deceased Jetha Ram submitted a written report Exh. P-9 at Police Station, Nokha stating inter alia that on 23rd July, 1998 her husband had gone to the Flour Mill of Govind Ram. At about 10:00 p.m. she heard dressing cries of her husband from the field of father-in-law Hari Ram. She along with her son PW. 4 Bhanwar Lal rushed to the spot and found that her husband Jetha Ram was being assaulted by Narayan Ram, Asha Ram, Govind Ram, Magga Ram, Phusa Ram, Anna Ram and Bhanwar Lal by lathies. Hearing the cries PW. 1 Samundra Singh, PW. 2 Anop Singh and PW. 3 Karni Singh also arrived on the spot. On their intervention, appellants spared him and ran away. Her husband Jetha Ram was taken to the Hospital at Nokha in a Jeep where he was declared dead. On this report, police registered a case for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 341, 32 and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellants. A incomplete charge-sheet was filed against accused Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal. We are told that they are also facing trial separately. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced number of documents. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellants. A incomplete charge-sheet was filed against accused Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal. We are told that they are also facing trial separately. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced number of documents. The appellants in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. The appellants also examined three witnesses namely DW. 1 Jassi Ram, DW. 2 Anop Singh and DW. 3 Govind Ram. The trial Court having found the prosecution case proved convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above. 4. Assailing the conviction, it is contended by Mr. J.S. Choudhary learned Counsel for the appellants that a careful scrutiny of the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses would reveal that they could not have witnessed the incident. According to Mr. Choudhary it is a case of blind murder and the appellants have been falsely implicated on suspicion. In alternate, it is submitted that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as such the conviction against the appellants does not travel beyond offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II, IPC. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant have supported the Judgment of the trial Court. 5. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record and considered the rival contentions. The prosecution has examined PW. 1 Samundra Singh, PW. 2 Anop Singh, PW. 3 Karni Singh, PW. 4 Bhanwar Lal and PW. 5 Shanti as eye-witnesses. PW. 1 Samundra Singh runs a Flour Mill in the village. He identified the accused persons present in the Court. He stated that on the date of incident at about 10:00 p.m. he was on the well along with PW. 3 Karni Singh and PW. 2 Anop Singh. They were attracted by the cries. They also raised alarming voice and rushed towards the field of Haru Ram. The deceased was being assaulted by the appellants in addition to Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal. The accused persons were armed with lathies. The wife and the son of the deceased Jetha Ram also had reached on the spot. They were crying standing at a little distance. They also raised alarming voice and rushed towards the field of Haru Ram. The deceased was being assaulted by the appellants in addition to Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal. The accused persons were armed with lathies. The wife and the son of the deceased Jetha Ram also had reached on the spot. They were crying standing at a little distance. On their intervention the accused persons spared Jetha Ram and ran away. They sent Karni Singh for arranging a Jeep. Jetha Ram was taken to the Hospital in the Jeep of Jethu Singh, where he was declared dead. On the next day, police visited the spot. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Parliament Elections had taken place at about 4-5 months earlier. He also admitted that the Dhani of Shri Ram is at about 30 Pavandas from the place of incident. 6. PW. 2 Anop Singh did not appear when he was recalled for cross-examination. On the contrary he appeared as defence witness. The trial Court discarded the testimony of this witness. Another eye-witness PW. 3 Karni Singh stated that on the date of incident he was on the well along with PW. 1 Samundra Sinh and PW. 2 Anop Singh. Hearing the cries, he along with Anop Singh and Samundra Singh rushed to the field of Haru Ram. He also stated that the wife and the son of the deceased were crying and standing at a distance. Deceased Jetha Ram was being assaulted. The appellants namely Asha Ram, Anna Ram, Phusa Ram, Govind Ram and Magga Ram in addition to Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal were beating Jetha Ram by lathies. On their intervention they spared him and left the spot. Jetha Ram had sustained severe injuries. He was taken to hospital in a Jeep where he was declared dead. There is a lengthy cross-examination mainly on the point if they could travel quickly covering 150-200 Pavandas and witness the incident. 7. PW. 4 Bhanwar Lal is the son of the deceased. He stated that on the date of incident his father had gone to the flour mill of Govind Ram. He heard the cries of his father from the field of his grand father. He along with his mother PW. 5 Mst. Shanti rushed to the spot. They found that the appellants in addition to Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal were assaulting his father by lathies. He heard the cries of his father from the field of his grand father. He along with his mother PW. 5 Mst. Shanti rushed to the spot. They found that the appellants in addition to Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal were assaulting his father by lathies. He also stated that hearing the cries, PW. 3 Karni Singh, PW. 2 Anop Singh and PW. 1 Samundra Singh had also arrived at the spot. On their intervention, the accused persons spared his deceased father and left the spot. His father had sustained number of injuries on his body. He was taken to the hospital in a jeep where he was declared dead. There is a lengthly cross-examination mainly directed on the question, if he could have witnessed the incident but nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. 8. PW. 5 Mst. Shanti is the wife of the deceased. She stated that her husband Jetha Ram had gone to the Flour Mill of Govind Ram. At about 10:00 p.m. she heard cries of her husband from the field of her father-in-law. She along with her Son Bhanwar Lal rushd to the spot. She witnessed that the appellants Ashu Ram, Govind Ram, Phusa Ram, Magga Ram, Anna Ram and two others namely Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal were beating her husband with lathies. She further stated that Karni Singh, Samundra Singh and Anop Singh also arrived at the spot and intervened. Her husband sustained large number of injuries on various parts of the body. He was taken to the hospital in a Jeep. The Doctor after examining declared him dead. She also stated that cause of the qurrel was supporting BJP, the accused party was supporting Congress. Inspite of lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. 9. PW. 6 Surendra Singh is the person who had taken the deceased to the Hospital in a Jeep. He has not supported the prosecution case and as such he was declared hostile. 10. PW. 7 Jethu Singh stated that on 23rd July, 1998 while he was at his residence Karni Singh approached to him and informed him about the incident. He made his Jeep available for taking the injured Jetha Ram to the Hospital. He also went to the spot. The injured Jetha Ram was taken to the Hospital in the Jeep. He was accompanied by his wife Mst. He made his Jeep available for taking the injured Jetha Ram to the Hospital. He also went to the spot. The injured Jetha Ram was taken to the Hospital in the Jeep. He was accompanied by his wife Mst. Shanti and other witnesses Karni Singh, Anop Singh and Samundra Singh. Jetha Ram was declared dead by the Doctor at Nokha Hospital. PW. 8 Phool Chand is a formal police witness. 11. PW. 9, Dr. B.K. Kashyap was the member of the Medical Board which conducted post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Jetha Ram. He has proved the post-mortem report Exh. P-14. The Board noticed following injuries on his person:- 1. Lecerated wound 1 cm. x 1 x bone deep over right leg lower part. 2. Lecerated wound 2.5 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep right arm 2” above elbow. 3. Lacerated wound 2.5 x 1 cm x bone deep on left arm 2.5” above left elbow. 4. Bruise 13 cm. x 3 cm. on right scapular region oblique direction. 5. Bruise 10 x 3 cm. on right scapula outer part. 6. Bruise(multiple) 20 cm. x 3 cm. on middle of back region. 7. Bruise10 x 3 cm. on right infra scapular region. 8. Bruise 9 cm. x 3 cm. on right lumber region. 9. Bruise 10 x 3 cm. on left scapular region middle. 10. Bruise9 x 2.5 cm. on left infra scapular region. 11. Bruise11 x 3 cm. on left lumbar region. 12. Bruise 13 cm. x 3 cm. on right lumbar region 3” above iliac (red). 13. Bruise13 cm. x 2 cm. on left thing back region middle. 14. Bruise 12 x 2 cm. on right thigh back & middle part. 15. Bruise10 x 2 cm. on right glutius oblique direction. 16. Bruise 9 x 2 cm. on left glutius outer part. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and duration within 24 hours. The Board also noticed, Fracture of right ribs 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th posteriorly. Fracture of left ribs 3rd to 8th anteriorly and posteriorly 3rd, 4th, 5th rib and fragment of bone punctured the heart and left lung. The Board further noticed; Fracture deformity of right Tibia, fracture deformity of left leg (Tibia and joint) 4” above on the ankle, fracture deformity of left radius ulna and fracture deformity of right arm 2” above. Fracture of left ribs 3rd to 8th anteriorly and posteriorly 3rd, 4th, 5th rib and fragment of bone punctured the heart and left lung. The Board further noticed; Fracture deformity of right Tibia, fracture deformity of left leg (Tibia and joint) 4” above on the ankle, fracture deformity of left radius ulna and fracture deformity of right arm 2” above. In the opinion of the Medical Board the cause of death was due to laceration of heart and lungs with haemorrhage. 12. PW. 10 Khinya Ram is a formal police witness. PW. 11 Nand Lal in the Investigating Officer. He has given the details of the investigation. PW. 12 Maman Singh is the SHO, Police Station, Nokha. He has also given the details of the investigation. 13. The main criticism leveled against the eye-witnesses PW . 1 Samundra Singh, PW . 2 Anop Singh and PW . 3 Karni Singh is that they are cooked up witnesses as their presence on the spot at the time of the incident was not possible. It is submitted that all the three witnesses have admitted that while they were in their field, they were attracted by the cries of the deceased Jetha Ram. They have also admitted that the distance between their well and the place of incident is about 150 Pavandas i.e., 750 ft. The learned Counsel has also invited our attention to the Exh. P-1 Site Plan which shows the distance between the place of incident and field of the witnesses is 2 Furlongs. To cover up a distance of 2 Furlongs, it will take at least 15-20 minutes. 14. We have perused the Site Plan Exh. P-1. The distance of 2 Furlong has been shown between the village and the place of incident and not the field of the witnesses. Even otherwise no question has been put to the Investigating Officer who prepared the site plan in this regard. No question has been put either to Investigating Officer or the witnesses as to the time to be taken in covering distance of 750 ft. The experience shows that to cover a distance of 750 ft., hardly takes about a minutes or two. 15. Similarly contention has been raised with respect to the time taken by PW . 4 Bhanwar Lal and PW . 5 Mst. Shanti in reaching at the place of incident from the Dhani i.e. their house. The experience shows that to cover a distance of 750 ft., hardly takes about a minutes or two. 15. Similarly contention has been raised with respect to the time taken by PW . 4 Bhanwar Lal and PW . 5 Mst. Shanti in reaching at the place of incident from the Dhani i.e. their house. The contention deserves to be rejected as no question was put to either PW . 4 Bhanwar Lal or PW . 5 Shanti or the Investigating Officer in this regard. However, in cross-examination PW . 3 Karni Singh has given the distance between the place of incident and the house of the deceased as 40-45 Pavandas. Thus, the witnesses were at very close distance from the place of incident and they could reach the spot and witness the incident. Thus, the presence of the witnesses on the spot cannot be doubted. They are natural witnesses. There is no reason to discard their evidence. The trial Court rightly believed their testimony. The statement of the witnesses also find corroboration from the medical evidence. The post-mortem report Exh. P-14 of the deceased Jetha Ram indicates that there are as many as 16 injuries. The injuries clearly indicate that there is fracture of 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th & 11th ribs posteriorly. The fracture of 3rd to 8th ribs anteriorly is also there. The fragment of bone punctured the heart and lungs. There are fractures of Tibia, leg and other parts of the body including arms. The medical evidence indicates that the deceased was given merciless beating by weapon of blunt object by a group of persons. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence on record lead to irresistible conclusion that all the accused persons armed with lathies in the night at about 10:00 p.m. mounted attack on the deceased and gave him merciless beating. The manner in which the accused persons appeared at the scene of occurrence with lethal weapons in their hands and mercilessly assaulted the deceased clearly exhibits that their common object was nothing but to kill the deceased. 16. The defence also produced three witnesses. DW. 1 Jassi Ram is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Raiser. He stated that the distance between the well in village and Uda Ram’s Dhani is 2 km. It will take 15-20 minutes to cover the distance. Evidence of this witness is of no help to the appellants for twin reasons. 16. The defence also produced three witnesses. DW. 1 Jassi Ram is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Raiser. He stated that the distance between the well in village and Uda Ram’s Dhani is 2 km. It will take 15-20 minutes to cover the distance. Evidence of this witness is of no help to the appellants for twin reasons. Firstly, the incident took place in the field of Haru Ram and not Uda Ram. The witness has referred to Uda Ram’s Dhani and not Haru Ram. Secondly, no question has been put to the prosecution witnesses in this regard. DW. 2 Anop Singh examined by prosecution as PW. 2, but the was recalled, instead of appearing for prosecution, he appeared as a defence witness. He resiled from his statement tendered as prosecution witness. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness. DW. 3 Govind Ram stated that deceased, his wife and son used to work in his field. Mst. Shanta had approached to her and reported that her husband was being assaulted by some persons. She also asked to called her son Bhanwar Lal. There is no suggestion to Mst. Shanta in cross-examination to the effect that she reported the matter to Govind Ram and asked him to inform her son. The statement of this witness also does not inspire confidence. Thus, the defence evidence does not advance the case of the appellants. 17. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that none of the injuries was on vital part of the body, as such it cannot be said that the appellants intended to commit murder of deceased Jetha Ram. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel. Injury to a vital part of the body is not essential factor to determine if the act constitutes an offence of murder. Similarly there is no substance in the contention that the Doctor has not stated if the injuries on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of death is said to be immediate and direct when the wounded person dies either immediately or very soon after the infliction, and there is no other cause, internally or externally to account death. The cause of death is said to be immediate and direct when the wounded person dies either immediately or very soon after the infliction, and there is no other cause, internally or externally to account death. When a person dies quickly after the injuries simply because the Doctor has not stated to the effect that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it should not be difficult for the Court to conclude that the said injuries were the cause of death. 18. In the instant case, the accused persons gave merciless beating to the deceased causing fractures of various parts of the body clearly leads to the conclusion that the deceased was given beating in a brutal and reckless manner by the appellants. Thus, we see no infirmity with the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302/149, IPC. 19. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit. The appellants are in Jail. They will serve out the remaining part of the sentence.