JUDGMENT Justice R.B. Misra, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the impugned judgment dated 28.5.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.11/7 of 2004/2002, for the offence under Sections 451, 324, 504, 506 and 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to F.I.R. No.205 of 2000, dated 17.11.2000, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.11.2000, at about 10:30 PM, Prem Lal has quarreled with his brother Pyare Lal in respect of setting on fire a heap of cow dung and on the call of accused Pyare Lal, two other accused persons, namely, Sita Ram and Onkar immediately came there and all the three accused started beating victim / deceased (Prem Lal). Accused Sita Ram, carrying ‘Drat’ in his hand, had hit on the forehead of victim / deceased and the other accused persons had started beating him with fist and kick blows. The victim / deceased was rescued by his wife Roshani Devi (PW-3), however, while going away from the place of occurrence, the accused persons threatened the victim with dire consequences. F.I.R. Ext.PW-5/A was lodged by Prem Lal / victim on 17.11.2000 for the offence under Sections 451, 324, 504, 506 and 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prem Lal / victim was medically examined by Dr.Vipin Kumar in Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin who prima-facie opined that injury No.1 was caused with sharp edged weapon. Again on 24.11.2000, at about 11 AM, Prem Lal / victim started vomiting, as such, he was removed to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, by his wife and when his condition further deteriorated, the doctor referred him to District Hospital, Bilaspur, where, he died on 25.11.2000. On 22.11.2000, S.H.O. Police Station, Ghumarwin prepared charge-sheet under Sections 451, 324, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused were also charged for the offence under Section 304 IPC. Post mortem was conducted by Dr.S.K.Patial (PW8) on 25.11.2000, who issued report Ext.PW-8/B, final opinion Ext.PW-8/C, Ext.PW-8/D and Ext.PW-8/E. The accused / respondents were charged for the offences under Sections 304, 324, 504 and 506/34 IPC. 3. Thereafter, the accused were also charged for the offence under Section 304 IPC. Post mortem was conducted by Dr.S.K.Patial (PW8) on 25.11.2000, who issued report Ext.PW-8/B, final opinion Ext.PW-8/C, Ext.PW-8/D and Ext.PW-8/E. The accused / respondents were charged for the offences under Sections 304, 324, 504 and 506/34 IPC. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses, whereas, the accused / respondents through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses, we notice that Smt.Roshani Devi (PW-3), wife of victim / deceased Prem Lal, in her endeavour to support prosecution case, has stated that a dispute had been going on between victim and accused Pyare Lal for the last several years and accused Pyare Lal had set on fire cow dung in the evening of 16.11.2000 between 6 to 7 PM and in that respect the matter was brought to the notice of Ram Dass (Up-Pradhan) who came to the spot. Accused Pyare Lal was constructing plinth of his house on that date when Prem Lal / victim asked the accused (Pyare Lal) as to why he had set on fire the heap of cow dung, upon which accused Pyare Lal replied that he had set on fire the heap of cow dung only and he may take any action against the victim also. Thereafter, Pyare Lal and the members of his family started exchanging hot words with Prem Lal / victim and at about 10 – 10:30 PM accused Sita Ram, Onkar and wife of Sita Ram came to the house of Pyare Lal and pelted stones on the house of PW-3. Accused Pyare Lal, Sita Ram and Onkar came to the courtyard of PW-3 and started beating Prem Lal / victim by fist and kick blows and stones. Accused Sita Ram, armed with ‘Drat’ (sickle) gave a blow of ‘Drat’ on the forehead of Prem Lal / victim. PW-3 has further stated that next day Jeet Ram was called and the matter was reported to the police and her husband was medically examined in the hospital and Prem Lal / victim had told to PW-3 that he was having severe pain in his head due to the injuries sustained by him. PW-3 has further stated that next day Jeet Ram was called and the matter was reported to the police and her husband was medically examined in the hospital and Prem Lal / victim had told to PW-3 that he was having severe pain in his head due to the injuries sustained by him. Because of poverty, the victim / deceased was not given medical treatment earlier, however, after eight days of occurrence, victim / Prem Lal fell seriously ill and started vomiting blood, therefore, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin in critical condition and thereafter he was referred to District Hospital, Bilaspur where he died. As per testimony of PW-3, the blow by ‘Drat’ Ext.P-1 was given by accused Sita Ram on the forehead of her husband. PW-3, in her cross-examination, has stated that adjoining the cattle shed of Ram Piare, there is house of Pyare Lal and the house of Pyare Lal is on the backside of house of PW-3. House of Shyam Lal is just adjoining the house of Pyare Lal and Shyam Lal is younger brother of her husband. As per statement of PW-3, made in cross-examination, she had filed a case against Sita Ram in the Panchayat prior to the occurrence and Prem Lal (victim / deceased) was arrested by police in respect of landed dispute with the accused. PW-3 had herself seen Pyare Lal setting on fire the heap of cow dung. While reiterating the statement, made in examination-in-chief, PW-3 has also stated that initially the accused persons pelted stones and thereafter all the accused persons gave beatings to Prem Lal / victim and at that time accused Sita Ram gave blow by ‘Drat’ by force on the head of Prem Lal / victim. PW-3 has very categorically stated in her cross-examination that her family had enmity with accused Pyare Lal owing to land dispute and there was no social contact with the accused. PW-3 has very categorically stated in her cross-examination that her family had enmity with accused Pyare Lal owing to land dispute and there was no social contact with the accused. The F.I.R. was lodged on 17.11.2000 by Prem Lal (injured / victim / deceased) and we take note of the fact that the dying declaration was made and the testimony of injured / victim Prem Lal was corroborated by none else but his wife (PW-3), who had not only observed her husband (deceased) Prem Lal having been beaten with legs and fist blows but had observed the blow given by accused Sita Ram by ‘Drat’ on the forehead of the deceased. The version of PW-3 was corroborated by PW-4 Jeet Ram to some extent when he went to the courtyard of PW-3, he observed an injury on the head of victim and blood oozing from that injury. However, Jeet Ram, though had not witnessed the incident, was only told by victim without naming the assailant that he has been beaten. As revealed by Ext.PW-2/A, we also take note of the fact that when victim was being medically examined on 17.11.2000 at 11 AM, PW-2 Dr.Vipin Sharma was informed that the victim was beaten by his elder brother by sickle and at that time out of several injuries, one major injury was noticed by Dr.Vipin Sharma. 5. Dy.S.P. Dalip Singh (PW-5) on 17.11.2000 has recorded the F.I.R. Ext.PW-5/A and the statement of victim Prem Lal was recorded in Rapat Roznamcha vide Ext.PW-5/B. In reference to application Ext.PW-5/E, post mortem (Ext.PW-5/F) was conducted and thereafter in reference to application Ext.PW-5/G to the Medical Officer to explain the cause of death of Prem Lal, the medical opinion was also obtained. 6. Ram Parkash (PW-6) has supported the prosecution case to the extent that he came to know that a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the accused persons and in that respect F.I.R. was lodged, however, on 23.11.2000, the condition of deceased Prem Lal became serious and he was referred from Ghumarwin Hospital to Bilaspur Hospital, where on 24.11.2000 he died. PW-6 telephonically informed the police that Prem Lal had died. PW-6, however, in cross examination, has stated that he did not visit the house of complainant to ascertain about the quarrel because the house of deceased was about 200 meters away. 7. PW-6 telephonically informed the police that Prem Lal had died. PW-6, however, in cross examination, has stated that he did not visit the house of complainant to ascertain about the quarrel because the house of deceased was about 200 meters away. 7. Smt.Ram Piari (PW-7) who has also supported the prosecution case by stating that the quarrel had taken place in the field at about 8:00 PM between Prem Lal / victim and accused Pyare Lal, followed by another quarrel at about 9:30 PM, when she heard hue and cries of victim from his land. PW-7 observed that Sita Ram was in the courtyard of Prem Lal / victim and Pyare Lal and Onkar had been pelting stones on him. PW-7 has further stated that Prem Lal / victim was lying in his own court-yard and blood was oozing out from his head. Sita Ram might have hit Prem Lal / victim on his head and on seeing PW-7, Sita Ram ran away from the court-yard, however, PW-7 had not seen Sita Ram giving ‘Drat’ blow on victim, whereas, PW-7 has very categorically stated that he had observed the presence of Sita Ram, Pyare Lal and Onkar in the court-yard of victim. In cross-examination, PW-7 has also reiterated that she had not seen Sita Ram giving he blow of ‘Drat’ on victim but had very categorically stated that the accused had threatened victim that they would not spare him. Accused had threatened PW-7 also. Scrutiny of testimony of PW-7, as made in cross-examination, also reveals that field of Sita Ram is adjoining her court-yard and he used to quarrel with PW-7 for which she had moved an application in the Panchayat on 12.8.1994. As such, it can safely be believed from the testimony of PW-7 that she was not having cordial relations with Sita Ram, however, she had very truly stated that she had not seen Sita Ram giving ‘Drat’ blow on Prem Lal / victim but had noted the presence of Sita Ram in the court-yard of Prem Lal / victim along with Pyare lal and Onkar, as such, PW-7 by virtue of only having strained relations with Sita Ram cannot be disbelieved. 8. 8. Dr.S.K.Patial (PW-8), after conducting post mortem examination on the person of deceased Prem Lal had observed following injuries:- “An infected, stitched would about 5 cm in length on right side of forehead near the hair line. No other mark of injury anywhere on the body. Body is in a state of rigor mortis and there was no sign of decomposition seen. Slight post mortem staining is seen on the back of chest. There was no mark of ligature on neck. On reflecting the scalp, a fissured fracture seen in the right parietal bone just beneath the forehead wound. It is about 3 cm in length. On opening the cranial vault, fracture line seen in the inner table as well. There was a sub-dural haemetoma underneath and about 50 C.C. of fluid blood had collected therein.” PW-8 has also noted and opined that the deceased Prem Lal most probably died of asphyxia, however, the final report was subject to report of Chemical Analyst. PW-8 issued post mortem report Ext.PW-8/B and PW-8 has stated that injury found over the forehead of Prem Lal was corresponding to the injury mentioned in the MLC Ext.PW-2/A. In the opinion of PW-8, head injury was the primary cause for the death of deceased and the same can cause death on the ninth day from the time of causing of injuries. ‘Drat’ / sickle (Ext.P-1) can cause head injury / fracture on the skull, as mentioned in the post mortem report. PW-8 has further stated in his cross-examination that Prem Lal / victim was given treatment for vomiting, loose motion and dehydration, however, PW-8 denied that dehydration can lead to asphyxia. Asphyxia is due to head injury and gastroenteritis has aggravated the death of deceased Prem Lal and shock can be due to vomit and loose motion. 9. PW-2, Dr.Vipin Sharma, who examined injured / victim Prem Lal on 17.11.2000 and has noticed the following aspects:- “1. A cut lacerated wound 3 cm over right upper forehead, contaminated with irregular margin 1 cm deep and 2 cm wide. No crepitus (soft tissue or bony), no irregularity at or about the injury site. 2. Black eye; Ecchymosis over right upper eye-lid. 3. Mild contusion over nose with minimal bleeding from right nostril present. 4. Diffuse pain, vague, ill localized over entire spinal column. 5. Vague pain about teeth. 6. Neurological examination. No crepitus (soft tissue or bony), no irregularity at or about the injury site. 2. Black eye; Ecchymosis over right upper eye-lid. 3. Mild contusion over nose with minimal bleeding from right nostril present. 4. Diffuse pain, vague, ill localized over entire spinal column. 5. Vague pain about teeth. 6. Neurological examination. No abnormal sign detected.” Nature of injury was said to be simple and weapon used for injury No.1 was said to be sharp and other with blunt and accordingly MLC Ext.PW-2/A was issued. Injury No.1was said to be possible with sickle Ext.P-1 and other injuries were said to be possible by fist blow and by stones. However, about the injury in skull and inner head, the opinion could have only been detected after X-Ray and CT Scan. PW-2 has also opined that in case of head injury, the patient may die within 8-10 days or may not die. Injury No.1 was said to be corresponding to head and duration of injuries within 24 hours. PW-2, in his cross-examination, has suggested that injury No.1, as detailed in Ext.PW-2/A, is possible if a drunk person falls on sharp edged stone. PW-2 has also stated that in case a blow is given with sickle Ext.P-1 with full force, the injury would be more deep and in such situation the depth of the injury should be deeper than its width. It was also indicated that there is possibility of sustaining injuries such as contusion etc. if a person falls on stones and since there was no sign of serious injury in the clinical examination of PW-2, therefore, X-Ray was not advised and since PW-2 observed only simple injury on the person of Prem Lal, therefore, CT Scan was also not advised. PW-2 has very categorically stated in his cross-examination that after clinical examination, he advised the injured victim / deceased to come for further medical check up in case of any problem or further complication but he did not come thereafter. The testimony of PW-2 reveal that not only injury No.1, there were other injuries on the person of deceased. As per examination of PW-2, injury No.1is resembling to the injury noticed by PW-8 Dr.S.K.Patial and such injury found to be corresponding to the injury mentioned in MLC Ext.PW-2/A and because of such injury, victim could have died by asphyxia. The testimony of PW-2 reveal that not only injury No.1, there were other injuries on the person of deceased. As per examination of PW-2, injury No.1is resembling to the injury noticed by PW-8 Dr.S.K.Patial and such injury found to be corresponding to the injury mentioned in MLC Ext.PW-2/A and because of such injury, victim could have died by asphyxia. In reference to opinion of PW-2, other injuries, mentioned above, also indicate that the co-accused have assaulted victim by leg and fist blows and by stones and besides injury No.1 other injuries were not of serious nature, as such, those could not be reflected in the opinion of PW-8. As has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the ocular evidence shall assume primacy unless it is established that oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh & Another versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 9 SCC 698 . 10. Jamer Singh, (PW-9) ASI, had visited the spot and had prepared site plan Ext.PW-9/A and recorded the statement of witnesses and ‘Drat’ Ext.P-1 was handed over by Sita Ram which was identified by victim and memo Ext.PW-9/B to this effect was prepared and witnessed by PW-11 though Subhash Chand (PW-1) has resiled and has stated that Sita Ram has not produced anything to the police in his presence and he has not seen ‘Drat’ Ext.P-1. PW-10 (Harbans Singh and PW-11 (Sanjeev Chauhan) had made endeavour to support prosecution case to the extent the role assigned to them in their official capacity. 11. On analysis of testimony of PW-3 Smt.Roshani Devi, it appears that due to poverty and slackness, her husband (deceased) could not be medically treated despite the advise of PW-2. PW-3 had filed a case against accused Sita Ram prior to the occurrence and had also voluntarily stated that her husband (deceased) was arrested by police in reference to a land dispute with the accused, as such, the relation of both PW-3 and her husband (deceased) was not cordial with accused Sita Ram but testimony of PW-3 cannot be disbelieved on the ground of enmity alone as her statement has been given in a natural way without concealing anything. PW-3 has also stated that she was having enmity with accused Pyare Lal and there was no social contact with him, however, such enmity will also not make the prosecution case fatal. 12. We are conscious that the incident took place in the evening of 16.11.2000 at about 10:30 PM, whereas, F.I.R. was lodged on 17.11.2000 at about 10:15 PM i.e. after delay of about 12 hours but we cannot ignore the fact that the place of occurrence was 8 kilometers from the Police Station, therefore, in the facts and circumstances and in our considered view, not recording the matter promptly to the police in the month of November cannot make the prosecution case fatal. We have gone through the opinion of PW-8 (Ext.PW-8/C) which indicates that ‘final opinion on the cause of death of Prem Lal son of Ram Dittu, on whom post-mortem was conducted on 25.11.2000, is “death due to asphyxia as a result of most probably shock of gastroenteritis and secondly following head injury”. Another opinion, as indicated vide Ext.PW-8/D, by PW-8 is that ‘the deceased did have signs of head injury on postmortem examination as detailed in the post-mortem report, as such, the victim could have died as a result of shock due to it, but at the same time, gastroenteritis could have precipitated and accelerated the death because of shock and head injury was the primary cause and death was accelerated when the person developed gastroenteritis.’ 13. We also notice some minor contradictions that deceased had not disclosed the names of assailant to Jeet Ram (PW-4), whereas, while lodging F.I.R., he had named the accused persons. Deceased Prem Lal has not referred that the assailant has hit him by stones and had only mentioned that accused Sita Ram had hit him on his head by ‘Drat’ and all the three accused, namely, Pyare Lal, Sita Ram and Onkar had also beaten him by legs and fist blows. Such minor contradictions, however, are not very material as the same do not go to the root of the case and make the prosecution case fatal. Such minor contradictions, however, are not very material as the same do not go to the root of the case and make the prosecution case fatal. Another minor contradiction is that PW-7, though has supported the prosecution case, has stated that firstly a quarrel had taken place between Prem Lal and Pyare Lal in the field at 8 PM and then at 9:30 PM and thereafter PW-7 heard hue and cry in the village and when she came out of her house, she observed that accused Sita Ram was in the court-yard of deceased, whereas, accused Pyare Lal and Onkar were pelting stones on deceased, who was lying injured on the court-yard and blood was oozing from his head. In view of the testimony of PW-7, accused Pyare Lal and Onkar pelted stones on Prem Lal, whereas, as per statement of PW-3, they gave beatings to Prem Lal with fist and kick blows. Such minor contradiction in the ocular evidence is not material as this does not go to the root of the case because Prem Lal / victim, the injured witness, had disclosed in the F.I.R. about the true story which has been corroborated by PW-3 Smt.Roshani Devi. Another minor contradiction that in view of the spot map Ext.PW-9/A, the occurrence took place in the court-yard of Pyare Lal and not in the court-yard of Prem Lal, whereas, according to PW-3 Roshani Devi, the occurrence had taken place in the court-yard of her house. Such minor contradiction also does not go to the root of the case. In the present case, we also see that there were large number of assailants as such meticulous exactitude of individual acts of accused was not expected from eyewitnesses in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandran versus State of Kerala, (2011) 9 SCC 257 . Minor contradictions or inconsistencies, as noted above, shall be irrelevant as the minor contradictions do not go to the root of the case in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Ramesh & Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 , Waman & Others versus State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295 . Minor contradictions or inconsistencies, as noted above, shall be irrelevant as the minor contradictions do not go to the root of the case in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Ramesh & Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 , Waman & Others versus State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed in State of U.P. versus Naresh & Others, (2011) 4 SCC 324 that minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and trivial matters which do not affect core of prosecution case, should not be made a ground for rejecting the evidence in its entirety. 14. The Investigating Officer ASI Jamer Singh (PW-9), in the spot map, even has not clearly shown the location of house of deceased Prem Lal, whereas, PW-9, in his cross-examination, has stated that door of the house of victim was facing towards North and house of Shyam Lal, brother of Prem lal, was in the back side of house of victim and adjoining house of Shyam Lal is house of Pyare Lal. Courtyard of house of victim and Shyam Lal is situated on the back side of house of Shyam Lal. PW-9 has further stated that there is house of Jeet Ram (PW-4) before the house of victim and Pyare Lal and it is situated at a distance of about 100 yards from the road leading to the spot and there were only three houses situated on the back side from the house of deceased but for the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, the house of victim and Jeet Ram have not been shown in the site map Ext.PPW-9/A, such lapse on the part of Investigating Agency cannot make the prosecution case fatal. Deficiencies in investigation by way of omissions and lapses on the part of the investigating agency cannot in themselves justify a total rejection of prosecution case in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Shankar Singh versus State of Jharkhand & Another, (2011) 3 SCC 654 . 15. In our considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not made proper appraisal of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, more particularly, the medical evidence. 15. In our considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not made proper appraisal of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, more particularly, the medical evidence. The true story of assault has been described by deceased / Prem Lal through his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. recorded on 17.11.2000 Ext.PW-5/A – F.I.R. which has been corroborated by testimony of PW-3, PW-7 and as has been described by ocular witnesses and injured and is supported by PW-2 and PW-8. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, we are of the considered view that the accused persons were the assailants and Sita Ram while carrying ‘Drat’ had caused injury No.1 on the person of the deceased and because of that he had died of asphyxia and the death also was aggravated by gastroenteritis. However, keeping in view the statement of injured / deceased, contents of F.I.R. and the statement of PW-3 and PW-7, the accused / respondents are also guilty of offence under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code for house trespass as they came in the court-yard of Prem Lal deceased. As per contents of F.I.R., all the three accused, while going back after making the assault, had threatened deceased Prem Lal that today he had been saved and next time they will kill him. Such averments of injured victim, made in the F.I.R., are not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-3 and PW-7, as such, the offence under Sections 504 and 506 has not been made out. 16. We also take note of the fact that from the testimony of Roshani Devi (PW-3) some dispute was going on between deceased Prem Lal and his brother accused Pyare Lal for several years and if Pyare Lal was innocent and had not assaulted the victim on the fateful day, along with other accused Sita Ram and Onkar Singh, then his natural conduct could have been that after knowing that victim had been injured, Pyare Lal could have immediately rendered his services physically, monetarily by virtue of blood relation and being his brother, moreso, when victim for poverty was in more need of medical help. We also notice that Pyare Lal and his family members had not at all bothered to take the injured victim / deceased to hospital or none had shown any concern towards the deceased as well as PW-3, (the wife of deceased / Prem Lal). The unnatural conduct of accused Pyare Lal also make the prosecution case reliable. The conduct of accused Pyare Lal and the statement of deceased, made under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW-5/A (F.I.R.), dated 16.11.2000, also reveal that none-else but his brother (accused Pyare Lal) had quarreled with him and had called other accused persons i.e. Sita Ram and Onkar and had beaten him by fist and leg blows and Sita Ram had hit him by ‘Drat’ on the head and thereafter till the death of deceased Prem Lal, no help of any kind was extended to Prem Lal deceased as well as to his wife (PW-3). Such aspects completely go against accused Pyare Lal and in favour of the prosecution. Accused Sita Ram, has been observed by Prem Lal deceased as well as PW-3, to have assaulted on the head of the deceased Prem Lal by ‘Drat’ and the contents of Ext.PW-5/A is the statement under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act which tantamount to dying declaration. The statement of deceased Prem Lal, narrated in Ext.PW-5/A, is the statement by a person as to the quarrel and cause of injury leading to his death and is also a narration of the circumstances and the acts of accused persons, the injury No.1 was caused by accused Sita Ram leading to the death of victim. Statement and narration of fact, divulged by victim / deceased in Ext.PW-5/A, is a relevant fact corroborated by PW-3 and PW-7, shows that accused persons are the assailants and the intention / knowledge of accused Sita Ram that inflicting of such injury on the head of victim with ‘Drat’ was likely to cause death of the victim. Accused Sita Ram can be safely held to be having knowledge that such inflicting of injury on the head of the victim was likely to result into some fatal injury to the deceased as every person is presumed to be knowing consequence of his act unless there is something on record from which contrary intention could be inferred. Accused Sita Ram can be safely held to be having knowledge that such inflicting of injury on the head of the victim was likely to result into some fatal injury to the deceased as every person is presumed to be knowing consequence of his act unless there is something on record from which contrary intention could be inferred. Undisputedly, the victim has died of serious injury No.1 on his forehead and gastroenteritis in view of the statement of PW-8. 17. In our considered view, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not made proper and correct appraisal of the prosecution witnesses, medical evidence as well as material on record, as such, the finding arrived at by learned Additional Sessions Judge is not legally correct, therefore, the judgment dated 28.5.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.11/7 of 2004/2002, is set aside. 18. In the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the role played by accused Pyare Lal and Onkar that they have also assaulted Prem Lal deceased by legs and fist blows creating complication for the deceased, they are also held guilty of offence under Section 323 in place of offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt on the person of the victim. Both the accused Pyare Lal and Onkar Singh are also held guilty for the offence under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. In the facts and circumstances, accused Sita Ram can safely be held intentionally causing injury on the head of the victim which proved fatal but he was having knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death of the victim. As such, the act of accused / respondent Sita Ram is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for this he is held guilty for the offence under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code. We also hold the accused / respondent Sita Ram guilty of offence punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code also and convict for the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the present appeal of the State is allowed. 20. After holding accused / respondents guilty for the aforesaid offences, as indicated above, the accused / respondents are to be heard on quantum of sentence in respect of the conviction indicated against the accused / respondents. Accordingly, the present appeal of the State is allowed. 20. After holding accused / respondents guilty for the aforesaid offences, as indicated above, the accused / respondents are to be heard on quantum of sentence in respect of the conviction indicated against the accused / respondents. As such, non bailable warrants are to be issued against them to procure their presence. List on 17.10.2012.