JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by four accused persons, Daldas, Gulabdas, Ratani and Ganpati. Daldas and Gulabdas are real brothers. Ratani is wife of Daldas, and Ganpati is daughter of Gulabdas. The appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu dated 5.12.1983, passed in Sessions Case No. 532/1982, convicting the appellant Daldas for theoffence under Sections 302, 325/34 and 323/34 and convicting the other accused persons for offences under Sections 325/34, and 323/34 I.P.C., and acquitting all of them for the remaining offences. The accused Daldas has been sentenced for the offence under Section 302 with imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 325/34 he has been sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo one month's rigoroug imprisonment and under Section 323/34 he has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. All substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. While the other three accused persons Gulabdas, Ratani and Ganpati have been released on probation, for keeping peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. 2. During pendency of the appeal, the accused appellant Gulabdas has expired, and vide order dated 24.11.1999 his appeal was ordered to stand abated. Thus, the present appeal survives only on behalf of the three accused persons Daldas, Ratani and Ganpati. 3. The brief facts of the case are, that on 5.8.1982 at about 10.15 in the night, in the Government Hospital Ratangarh, the Head Constable recorded the statement of injured Tulsidas son of Ladudas Swami resident of Khaleria, wherein it was stated by the injured, that they are three brothers, in the west of the village, there is a land measuring 35 bigha, wherein his share is of 10 bighas towards the south. There is a dispute with the accused persons Daldas and Gulabdas about the boundary for the last 8 years. It was alleged, that Daldas and Gulabdas go on moving the boundary every year, and they plough his land, they have already grabbed portion of the land, but he did not speak, but then this year also the boundary was still moved, and day before yesterday fresh fencing was erected. One Bore tree, which was existing in his land has been included by accused persons to be in their land. One Bore tree, which was existing in his land has been included by accused persons to be in their land. This was informed to him by his sons Bhanwar Das and Ruga Ram. On the day of statement, being Thursday at about 5 PM, he and his son Bhanwar Das went on the field, went near the boundary, and looking at them, the four accused persons came on the boundary, Saraswati kept standing at some distance, then he told Daldas and Gulabdas, as to why they have again moved the boundary, and with this, he dismantled the fencing to the extent of about 3 paces. Thereupon the accused persons told, that they will bring persons and get the boundary measured and asked for the concurrence of the witness, the injured, to which he agreed. At that time, verbal altercation also took place. Then the injured and his son started smoking, in the meanwhile Ratandas and Harudan also came, and told that you should not fight every year, both side should erect their own fencing, and after so advancing good counselling they went towards west. The informant also sat on the fencing, accused persons, who were standing also told to smoke, in the meantime, a part of the fencing happened to fall by the foot of the injured. Thereupon Daldas inflicted a blow with the iron Zai, as a result of which he fell down. Then various injuries were inflicted on his head, left hand, right hand, Gulabdas inflicted injury on his left leg with Zai. Thereupon his son Bhanwar Das came to intervene, on whom also injuries were inflicted by Ratani with Zai. Gulabdas also inflicted injuries on his head, and Ganpati inflicted injuries on his knee. Thus, the father and son fell down, thereupon, Ratandas rushed, and started shouting in the loud voice, as to whether accused persons are determined to kill, and started to intervene, thereupon Daldas and Gulabdas told, that they will kill so that the dispute may come to an end once for all, and since he is supporting them, he also would not be spared. With this Daldas inflicted a blow with iron Zai on the head of Ratandas, as a result of which Ratandas fell down. Then Daldas and Gulabdas inflicted further injuries on Ratandas as a result of which Ratandas fell unconscious. Then Harudan and Motiram rushed, who intervened and saved them. With this Daldas inflicted a blow with iron Zai on the head of Ratandas, as a result of which Ratandas fell down. Then Daldas and Gulabdas inflicted further injuries on Ratandas as a result of which Ratandas fell unconscious. Then Harudan and Motiram rushed, who intervened and saved them. Then they were taken to hospital. On these statements, a case for offence under Sections 323, 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 447 was registered. However, Ratandas died on 6.8.1982, and the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was also added. The matter was investigated, and it was found, that on the person of Tulsidas, there are 15 injuries, while Bhanwar Das had 3 injuries, and Ratandas had 6 injuries. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted. 4. The case was then committed, and the learned trial Court framed charge against the accused persons Daldas and Gulabdas for the offences under Section 302 and in the alternative 302/34, 307 and in the alternative 307/34 I.P.C., 323 and in the alternative 323/34 I.P.C., while the accused Ratani and Ganpati were charged for the offence under Section 307 and in the alternative 307/34 I.P.C., 323 and in the alternative 323/34 I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges. During trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced 44 documents in evidence. In the statement under Section 313 the stand taken by the accused Daldas was that it was the Tulsidas, Bhanwar Das and Ratandas, who had dismantled the boundary, trespassed in their field, and gave beating to them with Zai, and they only defended themselves, in which process both sides received injuries. Then the accused Ganpati stated that Tulsidas had dismantled the boundary, and by picking up fight with her father and uncle, false case has been prepared, wherein she had also been falsely implicated. Then Gulabdas adopted the stand of Daldas; while Ratani stated the same thing as stated by Ganpati. In defence, the accused examined three witnesses, being Arjundan, Harji Ram and Haru Ram. After so completing the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as above. 5. Then Gulabdas adopted the stand of Daldas; while Ratani stated the same thing as stated by Ganpati. In defence, the accused examined three witnesses, being Arjundan, Harji Ram and Haru Ram. After so completing the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as above. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment, it was contended that the accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. also, but that has not been proved, and they have been acquitted, against which there is no appeal by the State, which shows that the appellants did not trespass on the field of the victims. Then from the evidence of Patwari Chhotu Lal, PW-7, and from Ex.13 and 14, the revenue record, it is established, that the boundary did exist at the same place, since long. With this it was submitted, that from the material on record, it is clear, that it was the victim persons, who had come to dismantle the boundary, and trespass over the appellants' land, which they were very much entitled to defend. The appellants Daldas and Gulabdas did receive injuries at the hands of accused persons, as is proved by Ex.P-10, being the injury report of Gulabdas, and Ex.P-11, being the injury report of Daldas, which injuries have not been explained by the victims. That being the position, obviously, if at all there was any common intention of the accused persons, that was only to defend their property and person, and therefore, Section 34 I.P.C. could not be attracted, and each of the accused persons can be held responsible only for his/her individual act. With advancing this argument, it was submitted, that from the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is not established, that it was the appellant Daldas, who had inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased, since Gulabdas has already been acquitted of the charge under Section 302, until and unless it is established by the prosecution, that the individual act of the accused appellant Daldas did amount to the offence under Section 302, his conviction cannot be sustained, and in that event, he can be held responsible only for causing such of the injuries as are proved by the prosecution to have been caused by Daldas. 6. 6. Elaborating this argument, learned counsel read to us the statements of the victims PW-8, Tulsidas, PW-13 Bhanwar Das, and that of PW-9 Ham Dan, whose presence has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel submitted, that Tulsidas has clearly deposed, that after receiving injuries, he had fallen down, and became unconscious, and does not know, as to which of the accused caused which injury, to which of the other victims. Then it was submitted, that from the statement of Bhanwar Das, it is not established, that Daldas had inflicted the fatal blow on the person of Ratandas, rather according to him, all the four accused persons inflicted injuries on Ratandas. In such circumstances, since the fatal injury, according to Ex.P-24, the post modem report, is the injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and it is not shown that these three injuries were caused by the appellant Daldas, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 simplicitor is bad. Learned counsel in this regard also invited our attention to the portion E to F of the police statement of PW-13, being Ex.D-3. Apart from the above, it was also submitted, that in the totality of circumstances, PW-13 cannot be said to be reliable witness, for the purpose of believing, that the appellant Daldas caused such injury, as would tantamount to the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 7. Summarising the arguments, it was submitted, in the first instance that the act of the accused persons is fully protected by their right to defend their property and person, and therefore, they cannot be convicted at all. Secondly, it was submitted, that there is no State appeal against the acquittal of Gulabdas for offence under Section 302. Thirdly it was submitted, that from the evidence of even PW-13, read with Ex.D-3, it is not established, that the fatal injury was caused by Daldas, and lastly it was submitted, that in any case, in the totality of circumstances, PW-13 being not a reliable witness, he cannot be relied for the purpose of concluding, that it was the appellant Daldas only, who caused the fatal injury to the deceased Ratandas, in which event, Daldas could also be convicted only for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C., and not under Section 302. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. 9. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. 9. We have considered the submissions, and have gone through the record very closely. 10. At the outset it may be observed, that it is not in dispute between the parties, that the occurrence took place between the parties, and that there were dispute between the two set of parties on the question of location of the boundary, in the sense, that according to prosecution side, the accused persons were shifting boundary every year and grabbing the land, while according to the accused persons it was the victim side, which dismantled the boundary, and trespassed into their land to grab it. In these circumstances, the matter is required to be closely examined, as to how the occurrence commenced, and what was the sequence of events, in order to appreciate the true genesis. 11. Reverting back to the First Information Report, on the fateful day at about 5 PM Tulsidas and Bhanwar Das went on the field and went near the boundary, whereupon Daldas, Gulabdas, Ratani and Ganpati came on the boundary, the accused persons asked, as to why wrong boundary has been erected, and Tulsidas removed the fencing to the extent of 3 paces. Then it was agreed that a person would be brought and boundary would be measured. Thereafter Tulsidas and Bhanwar Das started smoking. Then Ratandas and Haru Dan came and told, not to fight every year, and both should have their own boundary. Thereafter, both parties smoked, at that time by the foot of Tulsidas one fencing happened to be disturbed, thereupon Daldas, who was armed with iron Zai (a weapon having long handle and having horns like that of fork), which in case of Daldas was having iron horns, inflicted injuries on his back at left hand, and right hand, while Gulabdas inflicted injury with Zai (this accused was possessed of Zai having wooden horns) on the left leg. Then Bhanwar Das came to intervene, on whom injuries were inflicted by Ratani, Gulabdas and Ganpati, as a result of which both of them fell down. Then Ratandas came and tried to intervene, whereupon Daldas inflicted injury with iron Zai on the head of Ratandas, as a result of which Ratandas fell down. Then Bhanwar Das came to intervene, on whom injuries were inflicted by Ratani, Gulabdas and Ganpati, as a result of which both of them fell down. Then Ratandas came and tried to intervene, whereupon Daldas inflicted injury with iron Zai on the head of Ratandas, as a result of which Ratandas fell down. Then in the fallen position, injuries were inflicted on the head of Ratandas by Daldas and Gulabdas, as a result of which he became unconscious. 12. Then we come to the oral evidence, comprising of PW-8 Tulsidas, the informant, he has stated, that some 9 months ago in the month of Bhadwa, in the evening he had gone on his field, his son Bhanwara was already there. On his arrival four accused persons came on the boundary. Then it was stated, that in the last Jeth, Gulabdas and Daldas had shifted the boundary, making it circular. After coming on the boundary, Daldas and Gulabdas said, that if he wants to straighten the boundary, he should come that side, thereupon he went near them, however, looking their attitude, he stopped. Then Gulabdas and Daldas are alleged to have said, that the witness is elderly person, so he should tell as to where the boundary should be, which was replied that you know, as to where the boundary was. In this process, the witness then smoked, at that time Haru Dan and Ratandas came on the field, and started chatting, and advised to settle the matter, instead of fighting. Then Gulabdas and Daldas are said to have given out, to be not fighting, and the witness should tell as to where the boundary should be. In that process, Ratandas was at a distance of about 5 paces from the accused persons, and at the direction of Gulabdas and Daldas, Bhanwara picked up Bhitaka (a constituent to erect fencing) whereupon Gulabdas is said to have given out, that the witness is greedy. Then Gulabdas dealt a Zai blow on the head of Bhanwara, looking to it the witness went near, then Daldas inflicted two blows on his head with Zai. The other accused persons also showered blows, since his hand was on the head, therefore, injuries landed at his hand, and only three injuries landed on head. The witness fell down, and even after falling, the accused persons continued to shower blows. The other accused persons also showered blows, since his hand was on the head, therefore, injuries landed at his hand, and only three injuries landed on head. The witness fell down, and even after falling, the accused persons continued to shower blows. Daldas was armed with iron Zai, while Gulabdas was armed with wooden Zai, Ratani was having wooden Chosinga and Ganpati was having Lathi. Then Ratandas came near, and told, as to whether accused persons' intention is to kill. Thereupon accused persons gave out, that this is long standing dispute, therefore, we would kill them. Then Ratandas intervened, whereupon injuries were inflicted on his back and head, by the accused persons, injury from whose hands landed on Ratandas is not known to the witness, because he was lying. Then Ratandas fell down, and when Ratandas tried to again stand up, he was again beaten. Daldas gave out, that two have been finished, third also should be finished. Then they were taken to hospital. In cross-examination, the main direction of the cross-examination is about the question, as to whether boundary was shifted or not, or whether accused persons have grabbed the land or not. Then about sequence of arrival, the witness was confronted with portion G to H of his police statement Ex.P-3, about he himself and son both to have reached together, which was stated to be correct. Then regarding sequence of events, he stated, that first injury was caused to Bhanwar Das, which was not so mentioned in Ex.P-3, of course, it was so stated by him. He has denied the suggestion about Bhanwar Das having come to save the witness, whereupon he was beaten. Then he was confronted with the portion 0 to P in Ex.P-3. Then questions were put about Harudan and Moti having come together. Then he stated that he had seen accused Gulabdas inflicting injuries on the head of his son Bhanwar Das, and soon thereafter he was injured, therefore he doesn't know as to what other injuries have been caused. He has maintained, that injuries were caused on him by all the four accused persons. Then he has stated that he was not having any weapon. Ratandas and Harudan were also empty handed, and that he did not inflict any injury to any of the accused persons. He has maintained, that injuries were caused on him by all the four accused persons. Then he has stated that he was not having any weapon. Ratandas and Harudan were also empty handed, and that he did not inflict any injury to any of the accused persons. He cannot say as to whether any injuries were caused by Ratandas and Bhanwar Das or Harudan. He has denied the suggestion, about Ratandas, Bhanwar Das and himself having gone armed with Lathi and Zai to give beating to the accused persons, and removed the fencing, and on the accused persons' asking to desist, beating was given to them. Thereupon fight ensued, and injuries were caused to the victims. Thus, according to this witness, the sequence of incident was, that it was on account of some portion of the fencing getting dismantled, that the accused persons started giving beating to him and Bhanwar Das, and when both of them fell down, Ratandas came to intervene, and he was also given beating. Obviously this witness does not say, as to which of the accused caused which injury on the person of Ratandas. 13. So far PW-9 Harudan is concerned, the learned trial Court has disbelieved his having seen the incident, and has found, that he had come bit later, therefore, we need not detain ourselves on his evidence. Then Moti Ram is the person, who obviously came later, and admittedly had taken the victims to hospital. 14. Then we come to the evidence of PW-13 Bhanwar Das, the other injured eye-witness. He is aged 25 years, and is the son of the witness Tulsidas. He has stated, that on the fateful day at about 6 in the evening, he and his father Tulsidas had gone on the field, where they found the four accused persons on the fencing. The accused persons had cut the fencing and were shifting it in their field. They went to stop them, whereupon accused Gulabdas dealt a Zai blow on his head, Daldas also inflicted one Zai blow on his father. Then other two accused persons also gave beating. Ratani inflicted blow with Chosinga, and Ganpati with lathi. In the meantime, Ratandas came there and intervened. Thereupon Daldas inflicted two Zai blows on the head of Ratandas, and Gulabdas also inflicted 1-2 blow on the head of Ratandas. Then Ratani and Ganpati also gave beating. Ratandas fell down. Then other two accused persons also gave beating. Ratani inflicted blow with Chosinga, and Ganpati with lathi. In the meantime, Ratandas came there and intervened. Thereupon Daldas inflicted two Zai blows on the head of Ratandas, and Gulabdas also inflicted 1-2 blow on the head of Ratandas. Then Ratani and Ganpati also gave beating. Ratandas fell down. In cross-examination, most of its part is directed towards the aspect of dispute, as to where the boundary was, and where it should be. However, the witness has denied the suggestion, about Daldas and Gulabdas only to have given beating to Ratandas, and Ganpati and Ratani having not given any bating. It was also denied, that Daldas alone gave beating to Ratandas, and other did not. Then the witness was confronted with his police statement Ex.D-3 portion E to F, wherein the witness has stated " rks xqykcnkl o Mkynkl ftuds gkFkksa esa tsbZ Fkh ekjus ds fy, gekjs ij geyk dj fn;k Mkynkl us esjs dkdk ds flj esa /kM+k /kM+ tsbZ dh Bksd nhA " down, in the fallen position all the accused persons gave beating, though it is not so mentioned in Ex.D-3. Then questions were put about beating given to his father, on the aspect, as to which of the accused person inflicted which injury, then he has stated that he inflicted two blows on Daldas and Gulabdas for the purpose of saving Ratandas and Tulsidas. He has denied the suggestion, about Ratandas having been given beating in the first instance, and Tulsidas to have given beating later on, and maintained, that the sequence was as deposed today. 15. In our view, thus, from this evidence, even at the cost of repetition, this much is clear, that the dispute was on the question of location of the boundary, and the prosecution has examined PW-7 to show, that the boundary had never been disturbed, while even according to PW-8, at the precise point of time, the incident occurred because of certain portion of the fencing having been dismantled. In that view of the matter, it can very well be said, that the accused persons did have a right of private defence of their property. Admittedly, despite the dispute being existing since long, no legal proceedings were initiated by Tulsidas etc., for having the dispute settled in accordance with law. 16. In that view of the matter, it can very well be said, that the accused persons did have a right of private defence of their property. Admittedly, despite the dispute being existing since long, no legal proceedings were initiated by Tulsidas etc., for having the dispute settled in accordance with law. 16. In the above background, the sequence of happening is required to be considered, and appreciated. Obviously the dispute was between Tulsidas on one hand, and Daldas and Gulabdas on other hand. Bhanwar Das, as noticed above, is the son of Tulsidas. Thus, even Bhanwar Das can be assumed to be one of the parties in the dispute. In our view, in such circumstances, the right of private defence could, and did exist, only to the extent of effectively protecting the property against the contemplated projected or threatened trespass in their field, by Tulsidas and/or Bhanwar Das, and for that purpose, they may have caused injuries to Bhanwar Das and Tulsidas, to that extent, the act may be protected by right of private defence. 17. As noticed above, Tulsidas had as many as 15 injuries on his person, as are clear from Ex.P-20 read with statement of doctor PW-11, being Dr. Lalchand, and those injuries included lacerated wound of 3 cm on the left occipital region, another lacerated wound of 2.5 cm on occipital parietal region, and it is not disputed, that on account of the injuries, including these two, Tulsidas had fallen down. Then it is not shown, even by cross-examination, that after injuries being caused to Tulsidas, and disabling him, any threat of trespass survived to the accused persons, to continue to exercise existing right of private defence. It is in this sequence, that injuries are caused on Bhanwar Das. It is a different story that according to Tulsidas, injuries were first caused to him, while according to Bhanwar Das, first injury was caused to him, then injuries were caused to Tulsidas. It is in this sequence, that injuries are caused on Bhanwar Das. It is a different story that according to Tulsidas, injuries were first caused to him, while according to Bhanwar Das, first injury was caused to him, then injuries were caused to Tulsidas. In any case, it is amply clear on record, that Ratandas came on the spot after these two victims had already received injuries, and he only advanced good counselling, by asking the accused persons, as to what their intentions ultimately are, they have already beaten two persons, and whether they mean to kill them altogether, and it is on his advancing this good counselling, that he was taken to be a supporter of Tulsidas etc., and he was attacked by Daldas, by causing two injuries on his head by iron Zai, and one injury was also caused by Gulabdas. 18. By the above recapitulation, we want to make it clear, that at the time of arrival of Ratandas, the said right of private defence to the accused persons, did not at all continue to be exercised against Ratandas, with the result, that so far as the injuries caused to Ratandas are concerned, the accused persons had no right to private defence. 19. Then we take the contention about no appeal having been filed by the State against acquittal of Gulabdas. In this regard, it would suffice to say, that the fact remains that the appeal has not been filed, but then, the fact also does remain, that Gulabdas has already expired. That apart, we are examining the individual act of the accused Daldas only, and since Daldas has not been convicted with the help of Section 34, and as noticed above, obviously, Section 34 is not attracted, non-filing of appeal against acquittal of Gulabdas is hardly of any consequence. 20. Then the last and most substantial argument of the learned counsel for the appellant remains, as to whether the fatal blow, on the head of Ratandas, was caused by Daldas, and as to whether, in this regard the evidence of PW-13 is believable or not, or the accused Daldas is also required to be convicted for the offence under Section 325. 21. 21. In this regard, from a look at the post mortem report, Ex.P-24, and the statement of the doctor PW-11 Lalchand, it is clear, that the deceased had three injuries on the head, and in all had 6 injuries. The first injury was a lacerated wound of 3 cm x 1/4 cm x 3/4 cm on the left side of occipital region. Then second injury is again lacerated wound of 7 cm x 1/2 cm x 3/4 cm on fronto parietal region, from hairline going obliquely. Then third injury is diffused swelling 8 cm x 7 cm, on right parietal region. Other three injuries are, one on the left upper eyelid, one abrasion on the upper third region of the right forearm. Then one lacerated wound of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the posterior aspect of left arm 4 cm above the left elbow. Then the 7th injury is a bruise 8 cm x 3 cm on the left shoulder. On the scalp the haematoma of 10 cm x 6 cm x 0.5 cm was found on the left fronto parietal region. Then another haematoma of 18 x 10 x 1/4 cm was found on the tempero parietal region. Then there was a communicated fracture of the scalp. Left fronto parietal bone was fractured; there was a depressed fracture, triangular, left side of the fronto parietal region. Then there was a transverse fracture on the left tempero parietal region. Then there was a vertical fracture on the left temporal lower side. Then there was a transverse fracture on parieto temporal bone right side and a linear fracture on right lower fronto parietal region. Obviously, these fractures and haematoma were caused by the first three injuries. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant was, that of course in examination-in-chief, PW-13 has stated, that on Ratandas' coming, Daldas inflicted two Zai blows on his head, and Gulabdas then inflicted 1-2 blow on his head, and Ratani and Ganpati also gave beating, whereby Ratandas fell down, and in fallen position also, all the four accused persons gave beating. Then the cross-examination was pressed into service, as quoted above. Then the cross-examination was pressed into service, as quoted above. In our view, this part of the cross-examination is only directed in the direction, as to whether the beating was not given by all the four accused persons, and is not directed in the direction, about Daldas having not inflicted any injury, or fatal injury. So far reliability of PW-13 is concerned, in our view, he is an injured eye-witness, whose presence on the spot is not disputed, and if false case were to be cooked up, even Tulsidas could have deposed about injuries having been first caused to Ratandas and to have been caused by all the four persons. As such, the evidence of PW-13, in our view, so far as he deposes Daldas and Gulabdas to have inflicted injuries on the head of Ratandas is concerned, does inspire confidence, and is required to be believed. 22. Then the thrust of the argument was, that since there are three injuries on the head of the deceased, and it is not clear, as to which of them was caused by Daldas, and since Daldas and Gulabdas have been acquitted of the charge under Section 34, and Gulabdas has also been acquitted of the charge of Section 302 I.P.C., Daldas cannot be held responsible for death of the deceased. 23. In our view, this contention stands sufficiently answered, by the statement of doctor PW-11, who at page 4, has clearly deposed, that the cause of death was the injuries received by the deceased on the head, resulting into extra and subdural haematoma and shock, he has stated that external injuries were injury No. 1, 2 and 3, out of them, each injury, by itself, corresponding internal injuries, and all the injuries collectively also, by their resultant internal injuries, were sufficient in the ordinary nature of course to cause death of the deceased. It may be observed, that he has maintained that all the external three injuries were on different part of the head, and that all the fractures could be received even by one injury, depression in the head was below injury No. 1 and that the injuries other than those at head were not sufficient to cause death. It may be observed, that he has maintained that all the external three injuries were on different part of the head, and that all the fractures could be received even by one injury, depression in the head was below injury No. 1 and that the injuries other than those at head were not sufficient to cause death. In our view, each of the external injuries on the head, out of injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, looking to their location and magnitude, and the resultant haematomas. In that view of the matter it is not of much significance, as to which, or which two of the three injuries, were caused on the head, by Daldas. It is again a different story, that it is not disputed the out of the four accused persons, Daldas alone was armed with iron Jai, as others were having either wooden Jai, or wooden Chosinga or lathi, obviously it is reasonable to conclude that the severest of the blows on the head must have been the result of iron Jai blow, as compared to the wooden Jai blow. 24. In that view of the matter, in our view, the learned trial Court rightly concluded, the accused Daldas to be guilty of the offence under Section 302, by causing death of Ratandas, by causing requisite injury. Thus, we do not find any error in the conviction of the appellant Daldas, for offence under Section 302. 25. Since obviously he has also caused injuries to Tulsidas on the head, and to Bhanwar Das, for which he has been found guilty of the charge, for the offence under Sections 325/34 and 323/34, and the learned counsel has not seriously assailed that conviction. 26. Then so far as the conviction of accused Ratani and Ganpati are concerned, in our view, from the evidence of PW-8 and 13, the offence against them is also sufficiently brought home. They have been released on probation only, which period of probation is also already passed. 27. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is, that we do not find any force in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Since the accused Daldas is on bail, the learned trial Court is directed to take steps for arresting the accused, to serve out the remaining term of sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******