Judgment A.K.Shrivastava, J. ( 1. ) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ashta district Sehore in Sessions Trial No.237/98 convicting the appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer RI of one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. for 3 months each under Section 148 of IPC and life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, R.I. for one year each under Section 302/149 of IPC, this appeal has been preferred by appellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973. ( 2. ) In brief the case of prosecution is that the partition of ancestral land took place between Inder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) complainant Udai Singh and accused persons Bhairu Singh, Takhat Singh and Narbat Singh one year prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that two acres of land fell excess in the share of accused Bhairu Singh etc. and this excess land was being demanded by complainant Udai Singh, and the deceased, however, the accused persons were adamant and were not releasing the said land and this made a point of enmity between the complainant party and the accused persons. ( 3. ) It is the further case of prosecution that four days prior to the date of incident (incident took place on 26.9.1998) accused persons Dhiraj Singh, Kumer Singh and Mangilal refrained the deceased to cut the grass and gave threat to him. It is said that again on the date of incident i.e. 26.9.1998 the deceased went to cut the grass and was coming back at 6 in the evening. At that juncture witness Balwan Singh was going little ahead to him and another witness Udai Singh was 25 yards behind the deceased. When these persons reached nearby the field of Madan Singh at that juncture, the accused persons, who were hidden behind the bushes of the field of Takhat Singh, came out and encircled the deceased. At that juncture witness Balwan Singh was going little ahead to him and another witness Udai Singh was 25 yards behind the deceased. When these persons reached nearby the field of Madan Singh at that juncture, the accused persons, who were hidden behind the bushes of the field of Takhat Singh, came out and encircled the deceased. It is said that Dhiraj Singh and Mangilal scolded and said thereafter Dhiraj Singh by Farsi dealt the blow to the deceased which landed on his forehead, Mangilal dealt Ballam blow on both the legs of the deceased and Kumer Singh dealt the Ballam blow on his head, Bahadur Singh by axe on the legs, Narbat Singh by lathi dealt the blows on the head, hands and back, Bhairu Singh by Karpa on the right leg, Narbat Singh by lathi on the hands and legs of the deceased. It is said that Dhiraj and Bahadur rushed to assault Balwan Singh and accused persons Bhairu Singh, Narbat Singh and Mangilal rushed to assault Udai Singh as a result of which these two persons fled from the place of occurrence. Witness Balwan Singh came to the village and told the incident to Jagannath, Jivan Singh and Lakhan Singh and brought them to the place of occurrence. By that time accused persons fled from the place of occurrence. The deceased was lying unconscious in the field of Mardan Singh. Thereafer, Udai Singh and Balwan Singh and the inhabitants of the village brought the deceased in a Metador vehicle to the Government hospital, Ashta where the doctor declared the deceased to be dead. In the night at 9.40 Dr.R.C.Gupta sent the written report to the police station that the deceased has been brought in serious condition for treatment at 9.05 P.M., however, immediately thereafter at 9.15 p.m. the deceased died. The police station Ashta recorded the Marg Intimation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. ( 4. ) The investigating agency after registering the case, sent the dead body for postmortem; prepared the spot map; recorded the statement of the witnesses; arrested the accused persons and seized the weapons from their possessions on the basis of their memorandum statement; sent the ordinary and blood stained earth and the clothes of the deceased for chemical examination. ) The investigating agency after registering the case, sent the dead body for postmortem; prepared the spot map; recorded the statement of the witnesses; arrested the accused persons and seized the weapons from their possessions on the basis of their memorandum statement; sent the ordinary and blood stained earth and the clothes of the deceased for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was submitted in the competent court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the trial court for its trial. ( 5. ) The learned trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the appellants in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 147,148 and 302/149 of IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 of IPC. Needless to emphasize all the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. ( 6. ) In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and placed Ex.P/1 to P/41 the documents on record. The defence of accused persons is of false implication on account of enmity and the same defence they set forth in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, in support of their defence, the accused persons did not choose to examine any witness. ( 7. ) The learned trial Judge after appreciating, marshalling and scanning the evidence came to hold that the appellants committed the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC and accordingly convicted them and passed the sentences which we have mentioned hereinabove. ( 8. ) In this manner the present appeal has been filed. ( 9. ) The contention of Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel is that the evidence of eye witnesses is not worth reliable and their evidence cannot be stretched to the extent inasmuch as to hold that the appellants have caused injuries to the deceased which resulted into his death and, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellants. ( 10. ( 10. ) An alternative submission has also been putforth by him that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of eye witnesses are worth reliable, since the injuries have been caused by the appellants either on the legs, hands or back of the deceased, except the single injury on the head, at the most the case would come under the clutches of Section 304 of IPC. By inviting our attention to the evidence of autopsy surgeon Dr.M.H.Ansari (PW-7) and postmortem report (Ex.P/24), it has been argued by learned senior counsel that the autopsy surgeon has nowhere opined that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary manner to have caused the death and for this reason also the case wc;uld come under the purview of Section 304 IPC. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in Molu and others vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499 and also Sarwan Singh and others etc. vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1525 and has submitted that in this case two persons were killed, one deceased sustained 14 injuries while second one sustained 16 injuries and in that situation the Supreme Court held that the case would rest under Section 304 part I of IPC. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Adu Ram Vs. Mukna and others, AIR 2004 SC 5064 , it has been argued that there were 34 injuries on the persons of the deceased but the Supreme Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304 part- I of IPC. By inviting our attention to para 18and 19 reported in B. K. Channappa vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 432 , it has been argued that as many as 18 injuries were found on the person of the deceased but the accused was convicted under Section 304 part I of IPC. By inviting our attention to para 18and 19 reported in B. K. Channappa vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 432 , it has been argued that as many as 18 injuries were found on the person of the deceased but the accused was convicted under Section 304 part I of IPC. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Sita Ram and others vs. State of U.P., AIR 1993 SC 350 as well as Subran vs. State of Kerala, 1993 AIR SCW 1014 and also on the decision of Sarman and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 400 and has argued that since the injuries were not on the vital organ of the deceased, in all these three cases, the Supreme Court held the offence to be proved either under Section 304 part I or II of IPC. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on Thangaiya vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 1142 . ( 11. ) On the other hand Shri Modh, learned Dy. A.G. invited our attention to the evidence of eye witness Balwan Singh (PW-2) and has submitted that if his evidence, particularly para 8 and 11 of his deposition, is considered in proper perspective, it could be inferred that the intention of appellants was to kill the deceased and, therefore, the trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants under Section 302/149 of IPC as well as u/s 148 IPC. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on certain decisions of the Supreme Court they are: (i) Prabhu and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1069 (ii) Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 SAR(Cri) 114, (iii) Manubhai Atabhai vs. State of Gujarat, J.T. 2007(9) SC 248 (iv) Ambaram vs. State of MP. J.T. 2007 (8) SC 540 Learned State counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Imtiaz and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2007 SAR (Cri) 354 and has submitted that the intention is to be inferred on the basis of the evidence placed on record and the genesis of the occurrence. On these premised submissions, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that this appeal is bereft of any substance and the same be dismissed. ( 12. On these premised submissions, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that this appeal is bereft of any substance and the same be dismissed. ( 12. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. ( 13. ) In the present case, Udai Singh (PW-1) and Balwan Singh (PW-2) have been examined as eye witnesses. PW-1, Udai Singh is also the author of FIR (Ex.P.26) and is the brother of the deceased. Similarly, Balwan Singh (PW-2) is the nephew of the deceased. Since these two witnesses are thickly related to the deceased, therefore, their evidence is to be scrutinized closely. By keeping in mind this well settled principle of law, we shall examine the statement of these two witnesses. ( 14. ) According to Udai Singh (PW-1) on the date of incident at 6 in the evening the deceased was going back to the village after cutting the grass and this witness was behind him. The other eye witness Balwan Singh, who is the nephew of this witness, was also coming back from the field and he was going little ahead to the deceased. As soon as these persons reached nearby the field of Madan Singh at that juncture, the accused persons who were hidden behind the bushes of the field of Takhat Singh, came out and encircled the deceased. Dhiraj Singh was having the stick of Farsi, Mangilal Ballam, Kumer Singh Ballam, Bahadur Singh axe, Bhairu Singh Karpa, Takhat Singh and Narbat Singh were armed with lathi. Dhiraj Singh and Mangilal scolded and said and thereafter Dhiraj Singh by Farsi dealt the blow to the deceased which landed on his forehead. Thereafter Mangilal by Ballam caused injuries on both the legs, Kumer Singh dealt the Ballam blow on the head which landed on his hand. Bahadur Singh dealt axe blow on the left calf region, Bhairu Singh dealt Karpa blow on the right leg, Takhat Singh caused injuries by lathi on the hands and legs of the deceased and Narbat Singh dealt lathi blows on the head, hands and back of the deceased. When this witness tried to intervene, accused persons Bhairu Singh and Mangilal rushed to assault him. Thereafter when Balwan also tried to intervene accused Dhraj and Bahadur rushed to assault him also. When this witness tried to intervene, accused persons Bhairu Singh and Mangilal rushed to assault him. Thereafter when Balwan also tried to intervene accused Dhraj and Bahadur rushed to assault him also. This witness has further stated that Bahadur threw axe on the person of Balwan which landed on his ankle. Thereafter, Balwan ran away towards the village and brought Jeevan, Jagannath and Lakhan Singh at the spot. This witness has further stated that Balwan Singh told these three persons that appellants are causing injuries by Farsi, Ballam, lathi, Karpa and axe etc. to the deceased in the field of Madan Singh. When, Balwan brought these three persons from the village, by that time the accused persons already fled from the place of occurrence and the deceased was lying in unconscious condition in the field of Madan Singh. This witness has further stated that they brought the deceased on a cot to his house and thereafter they hired a Matador and brought the deceased to Ashta hospital where Dr. R.C. Gupta examined the deceased and informed that he had already died. ( 15. ) This witness has stated that on account of land rivalry appellants have killed the deceased. He has also proved the FIR (Ex.P/1) lodged by him. This witness was cross-examined at length however despite there being a roving cross- examination over him, he remained vivid and has firmly stated that the appellants have caused the injuries by deadly weapons to the deceased -as a result of which he died. A very important fact has crept out from the testimony of tins witness is that Kumer Singh dealt the blow of Ballam to the deceased on the head but it landed on the hands of the deceased which would indicate that the intention was to cause the injury on the head but the blow was stopped by the deceased on his hands so that it may not land on his head. ( 16. ) The other star eye witness of the incident is PW-2, Balwan Singh. He has also corroborated the evidence of PW-1, Udai Singh and has stated that at the time of incident he was going back to his village and the deceased was coming behind him. ( 16. ) The other star eye witness of the incident is PW-2, Balwan Singh. He has also corroborated the evidence of PW-1, Udai Singh and has stated that at the time of incident he was going back to his village and the deceased was coming behind him. As soon as they reached nearby the field of Madan Singh at that juncture the accused persons who were hidden behind the bushes of the field of Takhat Singh came out. Mangilal was having Ballam, Dhiraj Singh Farsi, Bahadur axe, Kumer Singh Ballam, Bhairu Singh Karpa, Takhat Singh and Narbat Singh were having lathis and they encircled the deceased. Thereafter Mangilal and Dhiraj Singh shouted "ekjks lkyksa dks" and started giving blows by the weapons to the deceased. This witness has specifically stated that Dhiraj Singh dealt Farsi blow on the persons of the deceased and the blow landed on his forehead, Mangilal dealt Ballam blow to the deceased on his both the legs, Kumer Singh dealt the Ballam blow on the head but the blow could not be landed on the head because the deceased raised his hands as a result of which the blows landed on his hands, Bhairu Singh dealt Karpa blow on the legs of the deceased, Bahadur Singh dealt blow of axe on the lower side of the left leg, Narbat Singh dealt lathi blow on the head, hands and back. Takhat Singh also dealt lathi blow on both the hands. This witness has also corroborated the evidence of Udai Singh (PW-1) that this witness and Udai Singh, tried to intervene, but, Narbat Singh, Bhairu Singh and Mangilal rushed towards Udai Singh as a result of which Udai Singh ran away and when this witness tried to intervene, accused Dhiraj and Bahadur rushed towards him and Bahadur also threw axe on him which landed on his right ankle. This witness thereafter rushed towards the village and brought Jeevan, Jagannath and Lakhan at the place of occurrence. By the time they could reach the place of occurrence, accused persons already fled. The deceased was lying in the field of Madan Singh. The blood was oozing from his head and legs. This witness thereafter rushed towards the village and brought Jeevan, Jagannath and Lakhan at the place of occurrence. By the time they could reach the place of occurrence, accused persons already fled. The deceased was lying in the field of Madan Singh. The blood was oozing from his head and legs. It would be profitable to go through para 8 of his cross-examination in which this witness has specifically stated that the deceased was using his hands and legs as shield to save the blows of weapons and in para 11 also he has stated that the deceased was using his hands as shield and was roaming the hands in order to save the blows. Thus, according to us, indeed blows were aimed to be dealt by the accused persons on the vital part, but on account of using hands and legs as shield, they could not be landed on the vital part of the deceased. This witness was also cross-examined at length but he remained embedded in his version despite there being roving cross-examination over him. The learned senior counsel for the appellants could not point out that how and in what manner the evidence of these two eye witnesses should not be relied upon. On the other hand on close scrutiny of their testimony, we find that their evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy and learned trial court did not commit any error in placing reliance on the unimpeachable testimony of these witnesses in order to hold that the appellants caused injuries by the weapons (description whereof has been given hereinabove) to the deceased resulting into his death. ( 17. ) The evidence of these two eye-witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of autopsy surgeon Dr.M.H.Ansari (PW-7) who found as many as 29 injuries on the persons of the deceased. This witness has proved his postmortem report (Ex. P/24). On going through the evidence of the autopsy surgeon as well as the postmortem report, we find following injuries on the person of the deceased: (1) One incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right half of forehead 4 cm above right eye brow. Direction medio lateral (2) An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3.5 cm on the extensor aspect of right arm 4 cm above elbow on dissection veins and arteries cut and extensor gp of muscle cut. Direction lateromedial. Direction medio lateral (2) An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3.5 cm on the extensor aspect of right arm 4 cm above elbow on dissection veins and arteries cut and extensor gp of muscle cut. Direction lateromedial. (3) One incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2.5 cm x 1.0 cm below and on lateral to injury No.2. On the same part, vessels and muscles cut. Direction lateromedial and 0.5 cm below to injury No. 1. (4) One incised wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 3 cm on the left arm 2 cm above left elbow, on, dissection muscles vessels and nerve cut. Direction mediolateral and superiorly. (5) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 1.5 cm on the palmer aspect of left hand over thinner eminence extending to inter phalangeal space of left thumb and left index finger. Direction mediolateral and inferiorly. (6) An incised wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right leg on extensor aspect 3 cm below middle of leg. Direction sup. Inferior. (7) One incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the extensor aspect of right leg middle half and 3 cm above injury No.3. Muscles vessels cut. (8) One incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1.5 cm on the extensor aspect of left leg 7 cm above ankle. Direction sup. Inferiorly. (9) One incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm on the left leg 10 cm above injury No.8 on the extensor aspect superior inferiorly. (10) One contusion 2.5 cm x 7 cm on the right arm extended up to elbow and above 6 cm below shoulder. Colour pinkish reddish. (11) Disfiguration with swelling and contusion 15 cm x 7 cm on the extensor aspect of right forearm. Fracture of right ulna upper part. (12) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm with disfiguration and diffuse swelling on the wrist fracture of right radius, ulna lower end. (13) Contusion 8 cm x 6 cm with disfiguration and swelling over dorsum of right hand. right meta carpal bone of right ring figure in the upper part. (14) Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm with disfiguration with diffuse swelling on left forearm below elbow. Crackling sound and breach in continuity. of left radius ulna bone upper part. (13) Contusion 8 cm x 6 cm with disfiguration and swelling over dorsum of right hand. right meta carpal bone of right ring figure in the upper part. (14) Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm with disfiguration with diffuse swelling on left forearm below elbow. Crackling sound and breach in continuity. of left radius ulna bone upper part. (15) Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on left forearm 5 cm above wrist with disfiguration and swelling and breach in continuity with of left radius ulna bone lower end. (16) One contusion 2 cm x 0.5 cm right finger on lateral aspect. (17) One contusion 3 cm x 0.5 cm. Injury No. 16 on same part. (18) One contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on right thigh 1 cm below injury No.17. (19) One contusion pinkish red. 6 cm x 1 cm on the same part 1 em below injury No. 18. (20) One contusion reddish pink 3 cm x 1 cm on the right thigh and extensor aspect. Transversely placed. (21) One abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the right knee. (22) One contusion 6 cm x 2.5 cm lateral aspect of right thigh 2 , cm above right knee. (23) One contusion 5 cm x 3 cm transversely paced over right leg lateral aspect reddish pink. (24) One abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the right leg 7 cm below injury No.23. (25) One contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on the medial aspect of right leg transversely placed over middle part of right leg. (26) One contusion 4 cm x 1 cm transversely placed on the extensor aspect of left leg. (27) One abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the left knee. (28) One contusion 7 cm x 4 cm on the left thigh 5 cm above knee. (29) One contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on the medial- side of left thigh 5 cm above injury No.28. ( 18. ) According to the doctor the deceased had died due to shock (syncope) on account of excessive bleeding due to multiple injuries over the body. On scanning the evidence of the autopsy surgeon we find that the deceased sustained as many as five fractures. Injuries No.l to 9 were caused by sharp edged weapon and the rest injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects. On scanning the evidence of the autopsy surgeon we find that the deceased sustained as many as five fractures. Injuries No.l to 9 were caused by sharp edged weapon and the rest injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects. Injuries No. 11 to 15 were grievous in nature and other injuries were simple. The weapons were also shown to the doctor and in para 8 of his testimony he has opined that the injuries sustained to the deceased could come by Article "A" Karpa, Article B Farsa, Article C axe, Article D Ballam and Article E lathi. It is worth noticeable that deceased sustained as many as five fractures and all of them are on the hands they are : (i) fracture in right ulna bone upper end; (ii) fracture in right ulna bone lower end; (iii) fracture in right metacarpal bone (right ring finger); (iv) fracture in left radius ulna bone upper part; and (v) fracture in radius ulna bone lower part. In this context we may profitably rely the evidence of autopsy surgeon Dr.M.H.Ansari (PW-7) para 5. ( 19. ) At this juncture, we would also like to X-ray the evidence of Jeevan Singh (PW-4) to whom Balwan immediately after seeing the incident informed that how the incident had taken place and brought him to the place of occurrence where the deceased was lying in injured condition. According to this witness on the date of incident at 6.00 in the evening he was in his house at that juncture Balwan came to him in running condition and told that his uncle Inder Singh (deceased) is being beaten by Mangilal, Bhairu Singh, Takhat Singh, Narbat Singh, Dhiraj Singh, Kumer Singh and Bahadur Singh by lathi, axe, Karpa and Ballam etc. Thereafter, this witness along with Lakhan and Jagannath rushed to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased was lying in unconscious condition in the field of Madan Singh., However, accused persons were not found there. The blood was oozing from the wounds of the deceased. According to this witness he along with other persons brought the deceased firstly to the home and then took him to the hospital where the doctor informed that the deceased had died. This witness was also cross-examined at length but nothing carved out from his testimony in order to disbelieve him. According to this witness he along with other persons brought the deceased firstly to the home and then took him to the hospital where the doctor informed that the deceased had died. This witness was also cross-examined at length but nothing carved out from his testimony in order to disbelieve him. According to us, the statement of this witness is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. As the eye witness after seeing the incident immediately told and informed this witness that how the incident had occurred. ( 20. ) On the basis of the evidence of these above said three witnesses, the singular inference which could be drawn and which has been rightly drawn by learned trial Court that as a matter of fact, appellants by deadly weapons, (description whereof has been given hereinabove) dealt umpteen injuries to the deceased as a result of which he died. The findings of learned trial Court holding and arriving such a conclusion is thus hereby affirmed. ( 21. ) We shall now deal the alternative submission of learned senior counsel for the appellants that the offence would not fall under Section 302 of IPC and it would either fall under Section 304 part II or at the most under Section 304 part- I of IPC. We have also given our anxious and bestowed consideration to the decisions of Supreme Court cited by learned senior counsel in that regard. There is no dispute to the preposition that merely because the deceased had sustained several injuries would be the sole criteria to hold that the offence under Section 302 IPC is made out. But, the decisions which are cited by learned senior counsel are not applicable in the present factual scenario because in the criminal cases, what offence has been actually committed by the accused is to be decided on the anvil of the testimony of the evidence placed on record and particularly the evidence of the eye-witnesses. True, the autopsy surgeon found only singular injury on the head which is a vital organ of the body and in that regard we have seen injury No.l which is an incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the right half of forehead 4 cm above right eye brow. True, the autopsy surgeon found only singular injury on the head which is a vital organ of the body and in that regard we have seen injury No.l which is an incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the right half of forehead 4 cm above right eye brow. But, there is specific evidence of Balwan (PW-2) that Dhiraj Singh caused injury by Farsi (sharp edged weapon) on the forehead to the deceased. Indeed, para 8 and 11 of the testimony of this witness is the determining factor in order to hold that what offence appellants have committed. Specifically this witness has stated that the deceased was using his* hands and legs as shield to save the blows of weapons which were being dealt to him and, therefore, we can infer that the real intention of the appellants was to cause injuries on the vital organ of the deceased, but, the deceased was using his hands and legs as shield to stop the blows to be landed on his vital part of the body and therefore on facts the case laws which are cited by learned senior counsel for the appellants are distinguishable and we are of the considered view that the appellants have been rightly convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC. We may also profitably rely on para 3 of the evidence of Udai Singh (PW-1) who is also an eye witness and who has stated that Kumer Singh dealt Ballam blow on the head but the same was stopped by the deceased on his hand. This piece of evidence also corroborate the evidence of PW-2, Balwan. Thus, we have no scintilla of doubt that the intention of appellants was to kill the deceased and in order to save himself, the deceased stopped the blows and used his hands and legs as shield so that the blows may not cause injuries to his vital organs and hence according to us, the appellants have committed the offence under Section 302/149 of IPC. We may further add that deceased sustained 5 fractures on his hands and therefore we may infer that what was the force used by the appellants. ( 22. ) We do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the autopsy surgeon did not opine that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause the death. ( 22. ) We do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the autopsy surgeon did not opine that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause the death. Looking to the genesis of occurrence as well as paying heed to the evidence of PW-2, Balwan that the deceased was using his hands and legs as shield to stop the blows, even if it has not been so stated by the doctor that the deceased did not receive such injuries which would in ordinary manner sufficient to cause the death, ipso facto would not dilute the case of prosecution and it cannot be said that any other offence, lesser to Section 302 of IPC is made out. ( 23. ) For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any substance in both these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court. Appellants Bhairu Singh and Takhat Singh are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are hereby directed to surrender to serve out the remaining part of sentence. Appeal dismissed. RAHUL