JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.8.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar recording conviction of the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. and awarding sentenced as under : 341 I.P.C. One month's simple imprisonment. 323/34 I.P.C. One year's rigorous imprisonment. 302/34 I.P.C. Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine further to undergo two month's additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal is that on 11.9.2006 Shri Panchu Ram submitted a written report (Exhibit-P/22) at Police Station, Kuchaman City with assertion that at about 6:30 pm Khema Ram and Ganga Ram gave severe beatings to his brother Ramu Ram in front of his house, consequentially he died. Ganga Ram and Khema Ram also caused severe injuries to Smt. Mohini wife of deceased Ramu Ram, when she made an effort to save her husband. Accused Ganga Ram before quarelling with Ramu Ram entered in the house of deceased Ramu Ram and called him out. Khema Ram was standing on the way outside the house with 'lathi'. The entire incident was witnessed by Smt. Radha, Smt. Nathi Devi, his minor daughter Munni, Parmeshwari Devi, Mohini Devi and Megharam Meghwal. The accused persons earlier abducted Smt. Mohini Devi and a complaint in this regard was made at Police Station and also to higher police officials. 3. Acting upon the report aforesaid, a case was registered and after necessary investigation, a Police Report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr. P.C., was filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City. Being sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar. On 9.1.2007 after hearing learned counsel for the accused-appellants charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302/34 I.P.C. were framed and explained to the accused persons. On denial of the same, the trial commenced as desired. 4. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of witnesses PW-1 to PW-14 and the documents Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/26 were exhibited. Opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain the adverse circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence and the same were termed as false and concocted. On denial of the same, the trial commenced as desired. 4. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of witnesses PW-1 to PW-14 and the documents Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/26 were exhibited. Opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain the adverse circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence and the same were termed as false and concocted. The accused persons stated that they had been implicated in a false criminal case due to vengeance. The prosecution supported its case by citing Smt. Mohini Devi (PW-1), Smt. Munni Devi (PW-4), Prema @ Parmeshwari (PW5) and Radha Devi (PW-6) as the eye-witnesses and also on basis of the recovery of 'lathies' made at the instance of accused persons. Shri Pradeep Singh Yadav (PW-14) narrated all the steps taken during the course of investigation being Investigating Officer. Dr. Ashok Singh (PW-2) gave all the necessary details pertaining to the injuries available on the person of deceased Ramu Ram as this witness conducted autopsy. Dr. V.K. Gupta (PW-9) explained the injuries suffered by Mohini Devi. The trial court after examining the entire evidence available on record convicted the accused-appellants by placing reliance upon the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the recovery said to be made at the instance of accused-appellants. 5. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that all the eye-witnesses are the close relatives of deceased Ramu Ram and injured Mohini Devi, therefore, they are not trustworthy. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and also examined the record available. 7. As per the medical evidence available on record, the person of deceased Ramu Ram was having the following injuries : 1. "Lacerated wound 5cmx2 cmx bone deep on Lt side, loner part, occipital region of the scalp with surrounding swelling. parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound-6cmx 2cmx bone deep with multiple fractures of bone (Rt. Palieto-Occipital bone) 3. Deep laceration of brain matter at the site of injury 1 & 2 (cerebellum & Rt. Cerebellum) 4. Abrasion 2cm x 1cm on Lt side of forehead. Fracture of all membranes with hematoma at injury site No. 1 & 2. All injuries are ente-mortem in nature." 8. The cause of death as per the medical evidence is head injury leading to death. Cerebellum) 4. Abrasion 2cm x 1cm on Lt side of forehead. Fracture of all membranes with hematoma at injury site No. 1 & 2. All injuries are ente-mortem in nature." 8. The cause of death as per the medical evidence is head injury leading to death. In view of the medical evidence available on record, there is no doubt about homicidal death of Shri Ramu Ram. Smt. Mohini Devi also suffered injuries. As per the medical evidence, she was having the following injuries : 1. "Lacerated wound 5cm x 1cmx scalp deep on Left parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound-10cmx ½ cmxbone deep on Lt parietal just behind injury no. 1." 9. Precisely the question deserves adjudication in this appeal is regarding the definite involvement of accused persons in the crime in question and if they were indulged in the crime, then the offences committed by them. 10. PW-1 Smt. Mohini Devi wife of deceased Ramu Ram in quite unambiguous terms stated that on the fateful day her husband Ramu Ram was sitting in the house and at that time Ganga Ram came and called him out. He was calling Ramu Ram to have deliberations with regard to the proposed compromise pertaining to some earlier dispute. When her husband went out, accused Ganga Ram and Khema Ram gave 'lathi' blows to him consequently he died. In cross-examination this witness stated that she earlier went to Jodhpur with accused Khema Ram and Khema Ram by committing some fraud desired to enter into wedlock with her. Some dispute, thus, was existing between her husband and accused Khema Ram. 11. PW-4 Smt. Munni Devi stated that the deceased Ramu Ram was an elder of her family and on the fateful day accused Khema Ran and Ganga Ram gave beatings to him by 'lathies'. This witness also stated about existence of some dispute between the parties due to earlier relation of Smt. Mohini Devi with Khema Ram. 12. PW-5 Prema @ Parmeshwari a minor girl also stated that on 11.9.2006 at about 6:00 pm accused Khema Ram and Ganga Ram gave 'lathi' blows to her uncle deceased Shri Ramu Ram. 13. PW-6 Radha Devi stated that deceased Ramu Ram was her brother-in-law and on the fateful day Khema Ram and Ganga Ram gave 'lathi' blows to Ramu Ram just opposite her house. 13. PW-6 Radha Devi stated that deceased Ramu Ram was her brother-in-law and on the fateful day Khema Ram and Ganga Ram gave 'lathi' blows to Ramu Ram just opposite her house. They also gave 'lathi' blow to Smt. Mohini Devi, when she came forward to save her husband. 14. On basis of the statement of above-mentioned witnesses we are having no doubt about the involvement of accused-appellants in the crime in question. True it is, all the eye-witnesses are in close relation with deceased Ramu Ram, but merely on this count the evidence adduced by them cannot be held to be unreliable. The eye-witnesses have narrated all the facts with all confidence and there is no improvement with the version stated by them during the course of investigation. The trial court, therefore, rightly relied upon the testimony of these witnesses. 15. Now, the next question deserves consideration is that whether the accused-appellants were intending to cause death of Ramu Ram by giving 'lathi' blows. As already noticed, deceased Ramu Ram was having two head injuries and those were the cause of death. It is also a position admitted that the deceased and the accused-appellants were keeping some vengeance due to the earlier relation of Smt. Mohini Devi with accused Khema Ram. Accused Ganga Ram even as per the prosecution evidence first came to the residence of deceased Ramu Ram to have some deliberations to compromise the issue. Ramu Ram came out from the house and then 'lathi' blows were given to him by the accused persons. The accused persons after giving 2-3 'lathi' blows to him and after pushing out Smt. Mohini Devi fled from the spot of occurrence. If they had any intention to kill Ramu Ram, then they would have given much more severe injuries to Ramu Ram and also to Smt. Mohini Devi. The evidence available on record depicts that 'lathi' blows were given by the accused persons due to some spontaneous altercation. The accused-appellants must be having knowledge that the 'lathi' belows given by them may cause death but no evidence is available on record to establish the intention to do so. In such circumstance we are of the view that the offence committed by the accused-appellants is the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 I.P.C. and not an offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 16. In such circumstance we are of the view that the offence committed by the accused-appellants is the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 I.P.C. and not an offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 16. Accordingly, this appeal deserves acceptance in-part. The conviction of accused-appellants recorded for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded for that is set aside. The conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the accused persons for other offences is affirmed. The accused-appellants are held guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 I.P.C., thus, are convicted accordingly. They shall be liable to undergo eight years' rigorous imprisonment, each of them shall also pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In the event of default in payment of fine, the accused-appellants shall be liable to undergo additional sentence of two months' simple imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently.Appeal partly alloweds. *******