JUDGMENT Rakesh Saksena, J. 1. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.9.2001 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Multai District Betul in Sessions Trial No. 156/2000 convicting the Appellants under Sections 302/ 34 and 324/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years on each count, respectively. 2. In short, prosecution case is that complainant Nathuram (PW-14) lodged first information report Ex.P/13 that his Sadu Bhai (husband of sister-in-law) Sunderlal (deceased) had come to his house as a guest. On 20.5.2000, in the evening his daughter Sunita, who had gone to the house of accused Parilal, came to him and informed that Parilal rebuked her as to why she did not come earlier. Sunderlal went to the house of Parilal, who was living in the neighborhood, to admonish him. Hearing altercation between them, he went there to intervene. He saw that suddenly Parilal dealt a knife blow in the abdomen of Sunderlal. When he tried to intervene, Parilal also inflicted a knife blow on his right arm. Manti Bai dealt a blow with an axe on his left leg. Rooplal and Langdu also reached there and intervened. Sunderlal died at the spot and Nathuram suffered grievous injuries. Police Bordehi registered the first information under Sections 302/ 34 and 307/ 34 I.P.C. 3. Investigating Officer went at the spot, conducted inquest proceedings, recorded memorandum Ex.P/2, sent Nathuram for medical examination and treatment and also sent the dead body of Sunderlal to Primary Health Centre, Bordehi for postmortem examination. Dr. D.D. Singh conducted postmortem examination and vide his report Ex.P/21 found a deep incised wound on middle of the chest of deceased. Investigating Officer seized blood stained soil, plain soil, a knife and axe from the spot and sent the properties to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. During investigation, accused persons were arrested and were also sent for medical examination as they had also suffered injuries. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was then committed for trial. 4. Trial Court framed charges against the Appellants under Sections 302/ 34 and 307/ 34 I.P.C. Both the Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. According to their statements recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure deceased after consuming liquor entered their house and tried to molest Manti Bai. 4. Trial Court framed charges against the Appellants under Sections 302/ 34 and 307/ 34 I.P.C. Both the Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. According to their statements recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure deceased after consuming liquor entered their house and tried to molest Manti Bai. When Parilal reached there and objected to it, he went upon assaulting both of them. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile Nathuram also reached there and along with deceased assaulted them. When Nathuram tried to inflict a blow of axe to Parilal, by mistake it hit deceased as a result of which he died. 5. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses to substantiate its case whereas Appellants Manti Bai and Parilal appeared as defence witnesses under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure 6. Learned Additional Sessions, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, held the Appellants guilty under Section 302/ 34 I.P.C., however, finding the charge under Section 307/ 34 I.P.C. not proved, convicted the Appellants under Section 324/ 34 I.P.C. by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. It was not disputed that deceased Sunderlal died of homicidal injury. It has been stated by Rooplal (PW-9), Langdu (PW-12) and Nathuram (PW-14) that Appellant Parilal dealt a knife blow to deceased in his abdomen as a result of which he died at the spot. Investigating Officer D.R. Yadav (PW-17) deposed that after recording the first information report Ex.P/13, he went at the spot and after summoning the witnesses, conducted inquest proceedings and recorded inquest memorandum Ex.P/2. He also recorded the marg intimation report Ex.P/14. It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. V.P. Chouriya that Dr. D.D. Singh of Primary Health Centre, Bordehi had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased. Since Dr. D.D. Singh was seriously ill and was not capable to give his evidence, Dr. V.P. Chouriya proved the postmortem examination report Ex.P/21. According to him, on 21.5.2000 Dr. D.D. Singh Gulbake conducted the postmortem examination of the body of deceased and found a deep incised wound on middle of the chest of deceased. This injury had affected heart and lungs. There was excessive internal haemorrhage. The size of the wound was 5 x 3". V.P. Chouriya proved the postmortem examination report Ex.P/21. According to him, on 21.5.2000 Dr. D.D. Singh Gulbake conducted the postmortem examination of the body of deceased and found a deep incised wound on middle of the chest of deceased. This injury had affected heart and lungs. There was excessive internal haemorrhage. The size of the wound was 5 x 3". Lungs and left part of the heart was punctured. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage due to incised wound on the chest. Injuries were ante mortem and death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report Ex.P/21 was written and signed by Dr. D.D. Singh Gulbake. It was thus clearly evident that deceased died of ante mortem homicidal injury. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses Nathuram (PW-14), Rooplal (PW-9) and Langdu (PW-12) and failed to consider that they were not truthful witnesses because they did not give the correct genesis of the occurrence. They did not explain the injuries found on the body of Appellants which were proved by the evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the Appellants. 10. We have gone through the entire evidence on record. 11. Nathuram (PW-14) deposed that at about 8-9:00 p.m. on 20.5.2000 deceased had gone to the house of Appellant Parilal. When he heard Sunderlal shouting, he rushed to the house of Parilal where he saw that Parilal dealt a knife blow to Sunderlal. Parilal also dealt knife blow to him causing injury on the right rib. Sunderlal died at the spot. He stated that thereafter Parilal's wife Manti Bai also inflicted a blow with an axe to him resulting in an injury on his leg. He was taken to hospital. When he regained consciousness he lodged first information report Ex.P/13. He was shifted to Betul for treatment where he remained admitted for about 14 days. It appeared from the evidence of Nathuram (PW-14) that in relation deceased happened to be his brother. His house was situated at a distance of about 300-400 feet from the house of Appellant Parilal. The examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on 27.11.2000. The case was thereafter adjourned. This witness was called for cross-examination on 28.6.2001. It appeared from the evidence of Nathuram (PW-14) that in relation deceased happened to be his brother. His house was situated at a distance of about 300-400 feet from the house of Appellant Parilal. The examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on 27.11.2000. The case was thereafter adjourned. This witness was called for cross-examination on 28.6.2001. In cross-examination, he deposed that Sunderlal was not his brother. On the date of incident, Sunderlal had not come to his house. Sunita, daughter of Sunderlal, did not come to his house and did not talk to Sunderlal before him. He did not see Sunderlal going to the house of Appellant Parilal, but he admitted that on hearing some sounds he had gone to the courtyard of Parilal where he got unconscious by the assault made by Appellant Parilal on him. He denied the aforesaid facts which were stated by him in his police statement Ex.D/5. When a question was put by the Court as to why he was assaulted, he replied that he was assaulted because he went there to save deceased. He denied the suggestion that Appellant Manti Bai did not assault him with an axe. He expressed his ignorance about the injuries of accused persons. Though number of discrepancies and contradictions appeared in the evidence of this witness, but it is significant to note that this witness was cross-examined after about six months of his examination-in-chief. It is quite probable that he might have been influenced by the Appellants, however, it can be inferred that deceased went to the house of Appellants where Appellant Parilal dealt knife blow on his chest and Appellant Manti Bai caused injury with an axe to Nathuram (PW-14). 12. Evidence of Nathuram (PW-14) finds support from the evidence of Rooplal (PW-9), who deposed that Nathuram is his brother-in-law. In the night at about 9-10:00 p.m. he saw Appellant Parilal assaulting deceased with a knife in his house. At that time, Nathuram was also present. Appellant Parilal and his wife Manti had also assaulted Nathuram. Sunderlal died at the spot. Though Rooplal happened to be brother-in-law of deceased Sunderlal, but nothing appears on record to indicate that he had any quarrel with Appellants to have falsely implicated them in the murder of Sunderlal. By his evidence, the presence of Nathuram at the place of incident is established. Sunderlal died at the spot. Though Rooplal happened to be brother-in-law of deceased Sunderlal, but nothing appears on record to indicate that he had any quarrel with Appellants to have falsely implicated them in the murder of Sunderlal. By his evidence, the presence of Nathuram at the place of incident is established. Apart from it, Langdu (PW-12) also stated that when Nathuram went to the house of Appellants with a view to save Sunderlal, Parilal dealt a knife blow to him also which landed on his hand. At the same time, Manti Bai also inflicted a blow with axe to Nathuram. No doubt that Langdu (PW-12) admitted that Nathuram is his father-in-law and he lived at his house, but merely on that ground his evidence cannot be discarded. 13. Another fact to establish the presence of Nathuram at the place of incident is that he suffered injuries in the same incident, but doctor who examined his injuries, was not produced in the Court. It is apparent from the evidence of Nathuram (PW-14) that he remained admitted in hospital at Betul for 14 days. The fact that he received injuries in the incident stood established from the first information report Ex.P/13 and marg intimation report Ex.P/14 got recorded by Nathuram wherein he mentioned that he suffered injuries at the hands of Appellants. 14. In view of the above evidence, we find that it has been established that Appellant Parilal dealt knife blow in the abdomen of deceased as a result of which he died at the spot. It has also been established that both the Appellants caused injuries by sharp edged weapon to Nathuram (PW-14). Since doctor who examined the injuries of Nathuram, was not examined in the Court, trial Court was justified in holding that it was not established that injuries of Nathuram were grievous in nature and only it could be held that the injuries were simple in nature. 15. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries found on the body of Appellants. These injuries were received by the Appellants in the same occurrence. Though Appellants wished to lodge the report but police did not record the same. 15. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries found on the body of Appellants. These injuries were received by the Appellants in the same occurrence. Though Appellants wished to lodge the report but police did not record the same. It is true that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed to have seen injuries on the body of Appellants, but from the evidence of Inspector D.R. Yadav (PW-17), Investigating Officer, it is found that on 21.5.2000, he found both the Appellants in the hospital as there were injuries on the bodies of both the Appellants. He admitted that Appellants Parilal and Manti Bai had told them that Nathuram and Sunderlal had assaulted them. He admitted that the requisition about the medical examination of both the Appellants were not filed with the charge sheet, but they were enclosed in the case diary. The injuries of Appellants were mentioned in the requisition form. 16. Dr. V.P. Chouriya (PW-18) deposed that Dr. D.D. Singh Gulbake on 21.5.2000 had examined the injuries of Appellant Parilal and vide injury report Ex.P/22 he had found following seven injuries on his body: (i) Lacerated wound on left side head, behind left eye and left ear 3" x 1/2" x bone deep. (ii) Lacerated wound on left side of head 31/2" x 1/4". (iii) Incised like wound/linear abrasion 11/2" on right side of temporal region of head. (iv) Contusion on right forearm 3" x 2". (v) Contusion on right side of iliac crest 2"x 1". (vi) Contusion on left buttock 3" x 2". (vii) Contusion on back scapular region 3". 17. Dr. V.P. Chouriya (PW-18) deposed that Dr. D.D. Singh Gulbake had also examined the injury of Manti Bai on 22.5.2000 and vide her injury report Ex.P/23 had found: (i) A contusion with laceration and abrasion on upper chest right side. Injury was simple in nature. 18. From the above evidence, it stands proved that in the same incident in which deceased and Nathuram (PW-14) had received injuries, both the Appellants had also suffered injuries. The injuries of Appellant Parilal cannot be held to be merely superficial in nature. 19. Appellants Manti Bai and Parilal appeared as witnesses under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure According to them, house of Nathuram is at some distance from their house. The injuries of Appellant Parilal cannot be held to be merely superficial in nature. 19. Appellants Manti Bai and Parilal appeared as witnesses under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure According to them, house of Nathuram is at some distance from their house. In the night when Manti Bai was in her house and Parilal was asleep in "Usari", at about 9 o'clock, deceased reached there under intoxication and tried to molest Manti Bai. Hearing the sounds of Manti Bai, Parilal went there whereupon deceased quarreled with them. Nathuram came there with an axe. Deceased took axe from him and tried to assault Parilal, but the blow aimed on Parilal by mistake landed on Nathuram. Manti Bai (DW-1) stated that deceased received injuries at the hand of Nathuram. Manti Bai deposed that she and her husband informed the said incident to Kotwar and then went to police station to lodge the report, but their report was not recorded though they were sent for medical examination. 20. The defence story put up by the Appellants does not appear truthful as it cannot be believed that the deceased and Nathuram (PW-14) received injuries at the hands of each other by the same axe. The deep incised injury found on the body of deceased does not appear to have been caused by an axe. Evidence of none of the defence witnesses finds corroboration from their injury reports Ex.P/22 and P/23 wherein except one injury on the body of Parilal, all other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Therefore, the defence put up by the Appellants cannot be accepted, but at the same time the injuries found on the body of Appellants which they received in the same occurrence cannot be ignored. Non-explanation of injuries on the body of Appellants compels us to hold that the prosecution witnesses as well as Appellants have suppressed the genesis of the incident and have not come forward with a true version. In these circumstances, the possibility that for some reason there occurred a sudden quarrel between the deceased and Appellant Parilal, and Parilal in that course dealt a knife blow on the chest of deceased, cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, the possibility that for some reason there occurred a sudden quarrel between the deceased and Appellant Parilal, and Parilal in that course dealt a knife blow on the chest of deceased, cannot be ruled out. It is not indicated from the evidence on record that Appellant Manti Bai shared common intention with Appellant Parilal to cause death of deceased though she caused injury to Nathuram by an axe which was not proved to be grievous one. 21. In Settu and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 2006 SC 2986 ), Apex Court observed that "Under clause thirdly of Section 300, I.P.C., culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied: i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death." 22. On examining the facts situation of the instant case in the light of above legal proposition, we find that the trial Court committed error in convicting the Appellants under Section 302/ 34 I.P.C. However, since Appellant Parilal wielded a knife and inflicted injury on middle of the chest of deceased, it can be (10) Cr.A. No. 1846/2001 inferred that he intended to cause the death of deceased or intended to cause such injury to him as was likely to cause his death making him liable to be convicted for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. 23. For the aforementioned reasons, this appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: (i) Conviction of Appellant No. 1 Parilal as awarded by the trial Court under Section 302/ 34 I.P.C. is set aside, instead he is convicted under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. (ii) Conviction of Appellant No. 2 Manti Bai @ Saivanti Bai under Section 302/ 34 I.P.C. is set aside. She is acquitted of that charge. (iii) Conviction of both the Appellants under Section 324/ I.P.C. for causing simple injury to Nathuram (PW-14) is affirmed. (ii) Conviction of Appellant No. 2 Manti Bai @ Saivanti Bai under Section 302/ 34 I.P.C. is set aside. She is acquitted of that charge. (iii) Conviction of both the Appellants under Section 324/ I.P.C. for causing simple injury to Nathuram (PW-14) is affirmed. However, sentence of both the Appellants on that count is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, as awarded by the trial Court, to rigorous imprisonment for six months.