JUDGMENT Justice R.B. Misra, J. Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2002 has been preferred by the convict-appellant under Section 374 (II) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22/25.2.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2001, convicting appellant Satish Kumar by sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 304(2) of the Indian Penal Code and in the event of default of payment of fine, the convict – appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The convict – appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Initially all the three accused, namely, Satish Kumar, Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi were charged for the offences under Sections 302, 452 read with Section 34 IPC in reference to FIR No.85 of 2000 dated 10.8.2000, however, learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment has converted the conviction against appellant Satish Kumar for offences under Sections 304(2) and 448 IPC and has passed the sentence against him as indicated above and vide same judgment the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted two co-accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi by giving them the benefit of doubt for the offences under Sections 302, 452 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2002 has been preferred by the State of H.P. under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22/25.2.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2001, for enhancement of sentence against the convict – appellant Satish Kumar. 3. 2. The Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2002 has been preferred by the State of H.P. under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22/25.2.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2001, for enhancement of sentence against the convict – appellant Satish Kumar. 3. The Criminal Appeal No.431 of 2002 has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal was granted under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 22/25.2.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2001, whereby accused – respondent Satish Kumar, Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to F.I.R. No.85 of 2000, dated 10.8.2000, however, vide impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge has acquitted Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi for the aforesaid offences. 4. Since the above three appeals are emanating from the common judgment, passed in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2000, as such, all these criminal appeals are being adjudicated and disposed of by a common judgment. 5. In order to adjudicate the present appeals, it is necessary to give the facts of the case. 6. The victim / Surender Kumar, a lawyer by profession, when on 10.8.2000, came to his house at about 9 PM and was about to take his meals, at that time accused Satish Kumar, under the influence of liquor, accompanied by his wife accused Seema Devi and his mother accused Thakuri Devi, suddenly entered into his house and started giving beatings to the victim Surender Kumar / deceased. Accused Satish Kumar had beaten him with kick and fist blows. Consequently, the victim became unconscious. On raising alarm by Smt.Sunil Kumari (PW-1), the wife of victim, the villagers gathered in the house of victim, brought the victim to the hospital where the victim has succumbed to the injuries. On 10.8.2000, at about 10:20 PM, Onkar Chand (PW-8), informed the police about the incident and the victim was brought to Community Centre, Barsar for treatment. In that respect, information was entered into Roznamcha Ext.PW-19/A and SHO Madan Kant (PW-19), accompanied by HC Ramesh Kumar and Constable Nika Ram rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement (Ext.PW-1/A) of Smt.Sunil Kumari (PW-1). In that respect, information was entered into Roznamcha Ext.PW-19/A and SHO Madan Kant (PW-19), accompanied by HC Ramesh Kumar and Constable Nika Ram rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement (Ext.PW-1/A) of Smt.Sunil Kumari (PW-1). F.I.R. Ext.PW-16/A was registered by Head Constable Kuldip Singh (PW-16) and investigation was conducted by Madan Kant (PW-19), subsequently by ASI Raj Kumar (PW-18). The inquest report Ext.PW-3/A was prepared and post mortem of the victim / deceased was conducted both by Dr.Rakesh Chauhan (PW-11) as well as by Dr.Suman Sharma in Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur and accordingly report Ext.PW-11/B was submitted. Viscera report Ext.PW-11/A in respect of the victim was also received. After investigation, accused Satish Kumar, Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi were charged for the aforesaid offences in reference to F.I.R. No.85 of 2000 and case was committed to the Sessions Court. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses, whereas, the accused / respondents through their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and the defence has adduced only one witness, namely, DW-1 (Des Raj). 8. On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses, we notice that Smt.Sunil Kumari (PW-1), the wife of victim / deceased in her endeavour to support prosecution case has stated that on the fateful day when her husband came at about 8.30 – 9.00 PM, she offered him milk but he did not accept it on the pretext that he will take dinner and after changing clothes came to the kitchen when she had started preparing meal with the help of victim, at that time all of a sudden, accused Satish Kumar entered the kitchen and dragged her husband (victim / deceased) to the verandah after catching him from the neck. She came out of the kitchen and observed that the accused persons were beating her husband by kick and fist blows. She endeavoured to rescue her husband, accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi left her husband and started giving beatings to her with kick and fist blows. PW-1 called her children, namely, Shashi Kumar (PW-2) and Shilpa, from their rooms and asked them to call Ward Panch. Accordingly, both went to call Shri Krishan Dutt. Subhash Chand, son of Krishan Dutt, came to the spot and other persons, namely, Baldev Dass, Kishan Dutt, Kamal Dev and Kamlesh Shukla came later on. PW-1 called her children, namely, Shashi Kumar (PW-2) and Shilpa, from their rooms and asked them to call Ward Panch. Accordingly, both went to call Shri Krishan Dutt. Subhash Chand, son of Krishan Dutt, came to the spot and other persons, namely, Baldev Dass, Kishan Dutt, Kamal Dev and Kamlesh Shukla came later on. Subhash Chand (PW-6) rescued her husband and PW-1 was rescued by Mrs.Shukla Sharma (PW-10). After having been rescued, the victim / deceased fell on the floor and he was not able to move. People were gathered on the spot. Subhash Chand tried to give water to him but the victim could not take it, thereafter, the victim was taken to a Jeep, standing near the temple, for taking him to hospital. PW-1 further stated that accused Satish Kumar after giving beatings to her husband, broke the cot of her house by jumping over it and proclaimed that “I have killed the dog”. Similar words were also uttered by the accused near the temple while the victim was being taken to the hospital. PW-1, along with others, went to the hospital at Barsar where the victim was declared dead. In that reference, statement Ext.PW-1/A was recorded. PW-1 has further stated that accused Satish Kumar had forged a ‘Will’ by which Savitri Devi, the grand mother of victim and that of accused Satish Kumar was deprived of her that share which was to be devolved upon her on the death of Dhani Ram i.e. her son. The victim had objected it and had asked accused / Satish Kumar as he had forged the ‘Will’, however, on that, Satish Kumar had threatened the victim with dire consequences. In cross–examination also, PW-1 reiterated her testimony as made in her examination-in-chief. PW-1 has also stated in her cross- examination that offering the milk to victim was not got recorded before the police. On being confronted, it revealed that the statement that accused Satish Kumar entered the kitchen and dragged the husband of PW-1 out of kitchen to the verahdah and catching him from the neck was not so recorded. The statement of PW-1 that accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi gave beatings to him with fist and kick blows was also not recorded in Ext.PW-1/A. PW-1 has also stated that she did not depose in her statement Ext.PW-1/A that Subhash Chand rescued her husband from the clutches of accused Satish Kumar. The statement of PW-1 that accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi gave beatings to him with fist and kick blows was also not recorded in Ext.PW-1/A. PW-1 has also stated that she did not depose in her statement Ext.PW-1/A that Subhash Chand rescued her husband from the clutches of accused Satish Kumar. Such statement was got recorded by PW-1 subsequently. The fact that after hearing the cries of PW-1, her children gathered on the spot, was also not so recorded in Ext.PW-1/A. PW-1 further stated that police visited her house thrice and house of Ward Panch Krishan Dutt was not at a distance of about 400 yards from her house but was at a distance of 100 yards. PW-1 further stated that in her cross examination that the houses of S/Shri Jeet Ram, Daya Ram, Tulsi Ram, Jai Kishan, Roshan Lal, Ghansaru Ram and Jagdish etc. were situated at a distance of about 10 – 15 yards from her house. The house of accused Satish Kumar also falls on way from the house of victim to the house of Krishan Dutt (Ward Panch). The house of accused Satish Kumar was situated at a distance of 50 – 60 yards from her house. PW-1 has further stated that Subhash Chand (PW-6) came on the spot within 3 – 4 minutes, when the children of PW-1 went to the house of PW-5. PW-1 in her cross-examination further stated that whole of the occurrence took place between 15 – 20 minutes and during that period the victim was given beatings continuously with fist and kick blows with force. PW-1, however, was not sure as to on which part of the body fist and kick blows were given. She was also not sure as to how long the neck of the victim was caught hold of by accused Satish Kumar. PW-1 has further stated that the victim was not a patient of sugar and hypertension and was not suffering from mental problem as known to PW-1 from marriage till his death. 9. Shashi Kumar (PW-2), the son of victim, has corroborated the version of PW-1 and has stated that on the fateful day i.e. on 10.8.2000 at about 8:30 / 9:00 PM, accused Satish Kumar appeared on the gate of his house and proclaimed that “Zinda Nahin Chhorunga” and would burn the office. 9. Shashi Kumar (PW-2), the son of victim, has corroborated the version of PW-1 and has stated that on the fateful day i.e. on 10.8.2000 at about 8:30 / 9:00 PM, accused Satish Kumar appeared on the gate of his house and proclaimed that “Zinda Nahin Chhorunga” and would burn the office. The table and drum, kept for fencing the gate, were thrown by accused Satish Kumar in the kitchen garden. Accused entered the office room of his father / (victim) followed by Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi. Accused Satish Kumar went inside the kitchen and caught hold of his father from the neck and dragged him outside the verandah and all the accused persons started giving beatings to his father with fist and kick blows. When his mother / (PW-1) tried to rescue the victim, she was also given beatings by accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi. Thakuri Devi sat on the chest of his mother / (PW-1) and on asking by PW-1, his sister and he himself went to call Krishan Dutt (Ward Panch). Subhash Chand (PW-6) first came to the spot along with PW-2 and rescued the victim from the clutches of accused. S/Shri Baldev, Kamal Dev, Kamlesh and Shukla and Krishan Dutt came to the spot. Mrs.Shukla Sharma (PW-10) rescued his mother from the clutches of accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi. The water offered by Subhash could not be taken by the victim. People, gathered on the spot, took the victim to the jeep, parked near the temple, for taking him to the hospital and from the temple, the victim was taken to the hospital accompanied by PW-1, when PW-2 came back to his house, at that time, accused Satish Kumar was already there. PW-2 has further stated that the accused Satish Kumar pressed the glass by saying that as to why the water was offered to “Vakil Kutta” and the accused was saying that he had lost his finger ring on the spot and the accused has further proclaimed that he had done whatever he intended and now they can call the police. PW-2 further stated that accused Satish Kumar was wearing the reversed shirt and was under the influence of liquor and was jumping over the ‘Charpai’ which was broken in the process. 10. PW-2 has reiterated in cross-examination his earlier version made in examination-in-chief. PW-2 further stated that accused Satish Kumar was wearing the reversed shirt and was under the influence of liquor and was jumping over the ‘Charpai’ which was broken in the process. 10. PW-2 has reiterated in cross-examination his earlier version made in examination-in-chief. PW-2 has further stated in cross-examination that houses of S/Shri Baldev, Krishan Dutt and Shukla were near the gate of his house and accused Satish Kumar started crying outside the gate of his house and the distance of the gate from the house of PW-2 was about 15 feet. When the accused Satish Kumar entered in the office of his father / victim and subsequently in the kitchen, PW-2 was inside the room, however, when said accused started dragging the victim, PW-2 came outside the room but did not try to save the victim. Mother of PW-2 asked him to call Krishan Dutt after 3 – 4 minutes of the occurrence. PW-2 had also reiterated that his father / (victim) and mother/(PW-1) were beaten with fist and kick blows and the occurrence took place within 15 minutes and 20 – 25 people of the village gathered on the place of occurrence when his father was being shifted to the hospital and at that time 5 – 6 persons were present when accused Satish Kumar was uttering the words “Is Vakil Kutte Ko Pani is Gilas Se Keun Pilaya” and the accused started jumping on the cot after the victim was already taken to the hospital. PW-2 further stated that the accused accompanied his father (victim) when he was being taken towards the temple where the Jeep was parked. PW-2 has, however, denied that the victim was patient of blood pressure and sugar and has also denied that the victim was suffering from mental problem. PW-2 has also stated that they were not in the speaking terms with the accused persons for the last three years. 11. PW-5 (Krishan Dutt), Panch of Ward No. 3, Gram Panchayat Garli from 1995 to 2000, as well as PW-6 (Subhash Chand) son of PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) and PW-10 (Mrs. Shukla Sharma) have supported the prosecution case by virtue of their being the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 11. PW-5 (Krishan Dutt), Panch of Ward No. 3, Gram Panchayat Garli from 1995 to 2000, as well as PW-6 (Subhash Chand) son of PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) and PW-10 (Mrs. Shukla Sharma) have supported the prosecution case by virtue of their being the eye witnesses to the occurrence. As per version of PW-1 (Smt. Sunil Kumari), it was PW-6 (Subhash Chand) who had arrived at the spot of occurrence first, followed by others, as PW-6 (Subhash Chand) was asked by his father PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) to rush to the house of deceased and in view of the testimony of PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) PW-6 (Subhash Chand) proceeded immediately to the spot followed by PW-5. In fact, PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) was informed by Shashi Kumar (PW-2) i.e. son and daughter (Shilpa) of deceased Surender Kumar respectively, who came to the place of PW-5 at about 9.00 P.M. as both the children of victim told that their parents were beaten by accused persons, namely, Satish Kumar, Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi. 12. Such aspect of the prosecution is also supported by the testimony of PW-1 / (Smt.Sunil Kumari), who herself had stated that she deputed her son (PW-2) and her daughter (Shilpa) to inform PW-5 (Krishan Dutt), who was Ward Panch. PW-2 / (Shashi Kumar) has also supported such version of PW-1. PW-6 (Subhash Chand) has also very categorically stated in his examination- in-chief that PW-2 (Shashi Kumar) and his sister Shilpa visited his house on 10.8.2000 in night and informed PW-5 about the occurrence, who, inturn, deputed PW-6 to rush to the spot. The house of PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) as well as that of PW-6 (Subhash Chand) is about 100 yards from the house of deceased, as revealed from the cross-examination of PW-1 (Smt. Sunil Kumari), PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) and PW-6 (Subhash Chand), while denying the suggestion that the same was at a distance of 400 meters. 13. In view of the testimony of PW-5, when he reached to the spot after PW-6, he noticed that accused Satish Kumar was caught hold by PW-6, in the mean while Mrs. Shukla Sharma / (PW-10) reached there. PW-5 and PW-10 saved PW-1 from the accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi. 13. In view of the testimony of PW-5, when he reached to the spot after PW-6, he noticed that accused Satish Kumar was caught hold by PW-6, in the mean while Mrs. Shukla Sharma / (PW-10) reached there. PW-5 and PW-10 saved PW-1 from the accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi. PW-5 though had claimed in cross-examination that he could not know as to how many persons were gathered there, however, PW-5 has stated that out of the gathered persons on the spot, he came first except Subash Chand (PW-6) and Mrs. Shukla Sharma (PW-10). The version of PW-5 is also supported by testimony of PW-10 that when she reached to the spot, she observed that accused Satish Kumar had caught hold of deceased and was beating him. PW-10 also observed that accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi were beating PW-1. Though Pw-10 has indicated, through her statement made in examination-in-chief, that when she rescued PW-1 from the clutches of accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi, in the meantime, PW-6 (Subhash Chand) came to the spot, who rescued the victim/deceased, Surender Kumar from the clutches of accused Satish Kumar. 14. PW-10 has also stated that, in the meantime, PW-5, Baldev, Kamlesh Kumari and Krishna Kumari reached the spot. Such minor contradiction that PW-6 (Subhash Chand) came earlier followed by PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) or PW-10 (Mrs.Shukla Sharma) came first followed by PW-6 and PW-5, shall not make the prosecution case fatal, as all the three PW-5, PW-6 and PW-10 came on the spot and have consistently observed that the accused Satish Kumar was beating victim/deceased, whereas, both the accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi were beating PW-1. More so, in view of the version of PW-1 and PW-6, it appears that PW-6 as well as PW-10 almost reached on the spot simultaneously whereas, PW-5 (Krishan Dutt) reached on the spot immediately thereafter. 15. Though we also notice some minor contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 when he stated that PW-1 was being beaten by the ladies-accused and he, as well as PW-10, saved her from them, whereas, neither PW-1 nor PW10 stated so, rather as per their version, it is PW-10 alone, who saved PW-1 from the ladies-accused. 15. Though we also notice some minor contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 when he stated that PW-1 was being beaten by the ladies-accused and he, as well as PW-10, saved her from them, whereas, neither PW-1 nor PW10 stated so, rather as per their version, it is PW-10 alone, who saved PW-1 from the ladies-accused. Pw-6, also did not indicate that the ladies-accused were beating PW-1, rather as per the testimony of PW-10, PW-1 was standing by the side of her husband, who was caught hold by accused Satish Kumar and PW-1 was trying to rescue her husband, whereas, ladies/accused, according to PW-6, were also standing there in the verandah, meaning thereby, PW-6 was the first to arrive at the spot, however, he did not notice the ladies-accused beating PW-1. There appears some minor contradiction as per the testimony of PW-6 and that PW-5, who himself and PW-10 saved PW-1 from the accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Atmaram & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 738 , has also observed that every variation or discrepancy in the statement of witness cannot belie the case of the prosecution per se. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred and relied upon several decisions e.g., Dimple Gupta (Minor) versus Rajiv Gupta, AIR 2008 SC 239 , Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 2868 , Kalegura Padma Rao & Another versus State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 1299 , State of Punjab versus Hakam Singh, (2005) 7 SCC 408 , Krishna Mochi & Others versus State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 and Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand versus State of Haryana & Another, (1999) 9 SCC 525 . 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. In the facts and circumstances, there are no material discrepancies or contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and their evidences cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural or minor contradictions. 16. PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-10 have harmoniously indicated the presence of each other at the spot and all have also observed accused Satish Kumar giving beatings to victim/deceased and they all have also noticed the presence of accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi at the spot. From the testimonies of independent witnesses PW-5, PW-6 and PW-10, it is evident that accused Satish Kumar was there in the house of deceased on the fateful day and he had caught hold of deceased and was also giving beatings to him. The presence of two accused, Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi is also established on record. PW-10 has stated in her examination-in-chief that as soon as Subhash Chand / (PW-6) separated accused Satish Kumar, the victim/deceased fell down, however, PW-1 gave support to him. PW-10 has very categorically stated that accused Satish Kumar, while jumping on the cot, was proclaiming that he has done whatever he wanted to do and now let the police be called. Such version of PW-10 is also corroborated by similar statement of PW-5 / (Krishan Dutt) and further corroborated by the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, who stated that the accused, after giving beatings to the victim/deceased, broke the cot by jumping over it and proclaimed that he had killed a dog and they may call the father of the police. 17. 17. PW-10 has stated, in cross-examination, that it is correct that whatever the police asked from her, she replied, but she did not tell the police that before her arrival at the place of occurrence, Subash Chand / (PW-6) and other 4-5 persons had already reached there. PW-10 has also categorically stated in examination-in-chief that she did not try to save the victim / deceased from the clutches of accused / Satish Kumar, as she rescued PW-1, who was being beaten by accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi. As stated by PW-10, the accused persons were giving beatings to victim and his wife with kicks and fist blows and before arrival of PW-6 to the spot, PW-10 had already separated PW-1 from the clutches of two ladies-accused. 18. PW-10 has also averred in cross-examination that both the children of deceased had already left to the house of Ward Panch Sh. Krishan Dutt (PW-5) to call him, however, she immediately rushed to the spot within 2-3 minutes after hearing hues and cries. PW-10 stated in cross-examination that PW-6 reached to the spot after two-three minutes of her arrival and the houses of Mohan and Baldev are near to the house of accused and as compared to her house. She admitted that the house of accused Satish Kumar is situated in the middle of the houses of the deceased and Krishan Dutt / (PW-5), however, PW-10 has denied the suggestion that when she reached to the spot, the victim/deceased was lying in the verandah due to heart attack and she did not see the accused persons beating the deceased and his wife (PW-1). PW-10 has also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely due to friendly relations with PW-1. 19. PW-11, Dr. Rakesh Chauhan conducted the post mortem on the person of the victim/deceased on 11.8.2000 at 11.00 A.M. and has also given his opinion accordingly:- “INJURIES 1. There was abrasion of 1/4thX1/4 cm on anteriolateral aspect of right leg in its middle. 2. There was abrasion of 1/2X1/2 cm on right patellar region knee. 3. There was abrasion of 1/2x1 cm on dorsom of right wrist. 4. There was abrasion of 1X1/2 cm on left side of neck at level of angle of mandible about 3 cm posterior to it. OPINION. In our opinion the decease died of neurogenic shock due to scuffle with associated underlying heart disease. 3. There was abrasion of 1/2x1 cm on dorsom of right wrist. 4. There was abrasion of 1X1/2 cm on left side of neck at level of angle of mandible about 3 cm posterior to it. OPINION. In our opinion the decease died of neurogenic shock due to scuffle with associated underlying heart disease. However, final opinion was reserved till the Chemical Examiner’s report was received. It is correct hat death may even occur from primary or nerrogenic shock without any visible injury from parraliss of the heart by a blow of cardial region or from the inhibitory action of the solar plexus caused by a blow on the pit of the stomach in upper part of the abdomen. Immediate death is possible due to neroganic shock after receiving the injuries. Death may be possible by sudden stimulation of tigger area of the body by holding the throat in any excited person which may result in his collapse and instantaneous death. Injury No. 4 mentioned in Ex. PW-11/B can be said to be in rigour area. Injuries mentioned in Ex. Pw-11/B can be possible while a person is dragged and beaten by kicks and fist blows, the death can cause by these injuries. Injury No. 4 is possible in case the deceased was holded from the neck. Ueurogenic shock is sufficient to cause the death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. If one is beaten with kicks and first blows it is possible that there may not be any visible injury.” PW-11, in cross-examination, has denied the suggestion that the post-mortem report was written as per dictation of Dr.Suman Sharma, Sr.Medical Officer. PW-11 has conducted 30-35 post mortem cases and has also stated in cross-examination that victim / deceased was heart patient and was suffering from heart pathology which is different from heart attack. PW-11 has also stated in cross-examination that there could be sudden death of a person suffering from the disease, mentioned in column No. 6 of Ex. Pw-11/B, associated with stress or anger and excitement. It depends on the force and direction of the kick and fist blow, so given, as well as the posture of the victim i.e. stationary or in movement. The injuries No. 1 and 2, mentioned in Ex. Pw-11/B, associated with stress or anger and excitement. It depends on the force and direction of the kick and fist blow, so given, as well as the posture of the victim i.e. stationary or in movement. The injuries No. 1 and 2, mentioned in Ex. PW-11/B, are possible if a person falls on the ground, however, denied the suggestion that such injuries can be caused if a person is lifted by 3-4 persons in order to shift him. PW-11 has admitted the suggestion that the time, when a particular injury is inflicted, can be ascertained from its colour, whereas, he has not mentioned the colour of the injuries in the post mortem report. PW-11 has denied the suggestion that the dead body was again asked to be brought to the hospital and his opinion was got changed. PW-11 has also denied the suggestion that initially he had given opinion that the cause of death of victim was cardiac arrest. 20. PW-3 (Mast Ram) has witnessed the recovery of torch, a packet of Panchhi Chhap tobacco and a pressed steel glass. PW-4 (Rakesh Kumar) took photographs. 21. PW-4 (Rakesh Kumar) took photographs. PW-7 (Narotam Kumar), on receiving the information, had taken the injured to Hospital in Jeep bearing registration No.HP-21-0498. PW-8 (Onkar Chand), accompanied by Ramesh, the brother of deceased, went to Hospital, where, victim was in unconscious state, however, PW-8 has denied that the deceased had died due to heart attack. PW-9 / (Ramesh Chand) had taken photographs of dead body in the Hospital. PW-12 / (Dr.R.K.Sharma), on examination of the victim, had found him dead. PW-13 (Kishan Singh) Surveyor, had prepared scale map of the alleged spot Ext.PW-13/A. PW-14 (HC Deep Chand), PW-15 (HHC Hem Raj), PW-16 (HC Kuldip Singh), PW-17 (ASI Satpal Singh), PW-18 (ASI Raj Kumar) and PW-19 (SHO Madan Kant), while discharging their duties in official capacity, has supported the prosecution case to the extent the role assigned to them. 22. DW-1 (Desh Raj) has stated that after hearing noise when he went to the house of deceased he has observed hot discussion going on between the victim and accused Satish Kumar about the car garage. Statement of DW-1, however, does not mitigate the truthness of prosecution case rather has proved the presence of accused to the house of victim. 22. DW-1 (Desh Raj) has stated that after hearing noise when he went to the house of deceased he has observed hot discussion going on between the victim and accused Satish Kumar about the car garage. Statement of DW-1, however, does not mitigate the truthness of prosecution case rather has proved the presence of accused to the house of victim. Accused Satish Kumar, in response to Question No.22, has himself given the narration which also proves his presence in the house of deceased on the fateful day. Accused, though has endeavoured to take a defence that at the call of deceased when he went to the house of deceased to discuss the matter regarding letting out the shop for parking purpose and on refusal to let out the same by the accused, the deceased had fallen down and subsequently died. 23. Prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 / (Shashi Kumar), PW-5 / (Krishan Dutt) and PW-10 / (Smt.Shukla Sharma) have coherently stated that the relations of the deceased with the accused were not cordial. PW-1 i.e. the wife of the deceased, however, was not medically examined though she was the first witness of the occurrence and was said to have been beaten by both the lady accused, namely, Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi and no mark of injury was noticed on her person. In these circumstances, the role of both these accused (Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi) becomes doubtful. 24. On analysis of prosecution witnesses and materials on record coupled with medical opinion, we are of the considered view that accused Satish Kumar, while entering into the house of victim, had caught hold of him and dragged him to the verandah and had beaten him with kick and fist blows, whereby, he has succumbed to injuries. Since PW-1 and PW-2 have consistently denied that the victim was suffering from heart disease, as such, the ailment of heart, if any, also was not supposed to be known to accused Satish Kumar and it cannot be said that knowing it fully well that the victim was suffering from heart disease, he was having intention to kill him. Nevertheless, the accused was not having cordial relations with the deceased and has beaten him and it was in his knowledge that the beating was likely to cause the death. Nevertheless, the accused was not having cordial relations with the deceased and has beaten him and it was in his knowledge that the beating was likely to cause the death. As such, without intention to cause death the accused has caused bodily injury which resulted into the death of the victim for that the accused has rightly been convicted by learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 304(II) I.P.C. In our considered view, the accused has also rightly been punished by learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. for committing house trespass. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, we do not find any occasion to interfere with the judgment and findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction and sentence awarded against accused / appellant – Satish Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2002 is affirmed and he is held guilty under Sections 304(II) and 448 I.P.C. and in the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the injury and the act of accused, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC is affirmed and in default of payment of fine, accused Satish Kumar was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The conviction and sentence of six months and a fine of Rs.1000/-under Section 448 I.P.C. is also affirmed and in case of default of payment of fine the accused / appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. Since we have affirmed the judgment and verdict of learned Sessions Judge, as such, we do not find any merit in Criminal No.72 of 202 preferred by accused / appellant Satish Kumar and the same is dismissed. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone by the convict – appellant shall be reduced from the above awarded conviction and sentence. 25. We also do not find any occasion to enhance the sentence against accused Satish Kumar. The judgment and verdict of learned Sessions Judge giving benefit of doubt to accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi and acquitting them is also affirmed, as such, there is no occasion to interfere with the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. We do not find any merit in Criminal Appeal No.431 of 2002, hence the same is dismissed. 26. The judgment and verdict of learned Sessions Judge giving benefit of doubt to accused Thakuri Devi and Seema Devi and acquitting them is also affirmed, as such, there is no occasion to interfere with the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. We do not find any merit in Criminal Appeal No.431 of 2002, hence the same is dismissed. 26. For the reasons discussed above, Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2002, preferred by the State against the accused / respondent, is also dismissed. Accused / respondent is already on bail, his bail bonds are to be cancelled and he has to be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the conviction and sentence, so indicated.