JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 31.05.2010/04.06.2010, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in S.T. No.6 of 2009 (crime no.3/08 of Patwari Outpost Jainti, District Almora) is under challenge, wherein three accused persons, namely, Pooran Ram, Khasti Ram and Smt. Bhagirathi Devi were tried. Learned Sessions Judge culminated the trial holding all the three accused persons guilty for the offences u/s 302 and 201 IPC, wherefor they were appropriately sentenced. 2. It is pertinent to mention that accused Smt. Bhagirathi Devi and Khasti Ram had preferred a separate criminal appeal no.132 of 2010 assailing the said judgment. Vide judgment dated 3.7.2013, we have allowed the said appeal by acquitting the accused persons, therein, from the offences under which they were charged. Now, only Pooran Ram @ Pooran Chand is before us in the instant appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned State counsel nay perused the evidence on record. 4. The theme of incident is that appellant Pooran Ram and co-accused Khasti Ram were the cleaner and driver respectively in Truck-tanker no.UP01-1805. In this case, Pratap Singh (deceased) was a young man of 33 years of age. On the suspicion that deceased committed theft of either Rs.18,000/- or Rs.89,000/- from the said truck, he was allegedly killed by the afore-named accused. 5. In this case, PW1 Narain Ram is the sole eyewitness of the occurrence, whereas PW2 Laxman Singh (deceased’s real brother) is the informant. The case of prosecution is that in the evening of 15.11.2008, appellant Pooran Ram informed Laxman Singh on phone that his brother Pratap Singh had plundered Rs.18,000/- from the truck, and he (PW2) was asked to return the said money, failing which, he was threatened to find his brother dead. Receiving this information, PW2 rushed to the spot but did not find anyone there. On the next day (16.11.2008), when PW2 enquired the appellant as regards the whereabouts of his brother, he was told that some compromise had been effected between him (appellant) and Khasti Ram on the one hand and Pratap Singh on the other. Meanwhile, PW2 noticed the clothes of his brother lying in the vicinity of the incident. PW2, accordingly, expressed suspicion in the report that his brother Pratap Singh was killed by the appellant and his accomplice Khasti Ram. Meanwhile, PW2 noticed the clothes of his brother lying in the vicinity of the incident. PW2, accordingly, expressed suspicion in the report that his brother Pratap Singh was killed by the appellant and his accomplice Khasti Ram. With the above averments, Laxman Singh (PW2) lodged the FIR (Ex.Ka.1) on the same day (16.11.2008) at 11:30 A.M. before the Naib Tehsildar. Chick report thereof is Ex.Ka-3. The revenue police resulted the investigation into submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-25) against three accused persons, namely, Puran Ram, Khasti Ram and Smt. Bhagirathi Devi for the offences u/s 302 and 201 IPC. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Almora framed charges against the accused persons under sections 302/201 r/w Section 34 IPC, to which they abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 7. Prosecution, in all, examined seven witnesses, who are PW1 Narain Ram, PW2 Laxman Singh, PW3 Dr. D.P. Durgapal, PW4 Prakash Ram, PW5 Gopal Ram, PW6 L.M. Tiwari and PW7 Lokmani Bhatt. 8. After the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. 9. Learned Sessions Judge, vide the judgment and order under appeal, culminated the trial into conviction of all the accused/appellants, as discussed hereinabove. 10. As stated above, after hearing the separate appeal (CRLA No.132/2010) preferred by Smt. Bhagirathi Devi and her husband Khasti Ram, they have been acquitted by us vide judgment dated 03.07.2013. The main reason for their acquittal was that the deposition of PW1 Narain Ram was found to be suspicious one. 11. Now, so far as the appellant Pooran Ram is concerned, we find that besides the testimony of PW2, appellant himself moved an application (paper no.50-Kha) before the court below wherein he stated that the deceased Pratap Singh had stolen a sum of Rs.89,000/- from the truck-tanker. For that issue, he (appellant) had a scuffle which resulted into the death of victim. Though the court below has not framed any question u/s 313 Cr.P.C. asking appellant as regards moving any such application, wherein, narrating the tale, he has admitted the incident and confessed his guilt, but, in view of the fact that the appellant was denied opportunity to explain the contents thereof, we are not inclined to accept such an application in order to corroborate it with other reliable testimony available on the record. Nonetheless, we feel it proper on our part to refer that the court below has taken note of this application while passing the impugned judgment. 12. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., appellant accepts the factum of quarrel to the extent of assault and counter-assault between him and the deceased. As a result thereof, clothes of both were torn. Then after putting on his spare pantaloon to the deceased, he left the dead body at the spot. The appellant, at the end, has accepted that he has given his statement voluntarily without any threat or coercion. 13. On a careful perusal of the above-statements made by the appellant/accused, we feel that there remains no room to exonerate the appellant from the guilt. 14. Now, the only question, which his learned counsel has raised before the Court, is that the appellant Pooran Ram did not have intention or knowledge that the nature of assault would cause the murder of Pratap Singh. The autopsy report (Ex.Ka-2), prepared by PW3 Dr. D.P. Durgapal, transpires that the medical officer found multiple lacerations and abrasions all over the body of deceased. Besides, three lacerated haematomas were also found on the head measuring about 4 cm x 4 cm. In his testimony, PW3 has testified that the injuries on the person of deceased were simple in nature, but those were not sufficient to cause death of deceased. 15. Learned counsel, in support of his case, has relied upon a precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ramaswamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu” reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. Page 3253, wherein, the single injury, inflicted by the accused on the abdomen of deceased, was not opined by the doctor which could have caused the death of victim necessarily. So, the Apex Court was of the view that in such eventuality, it could not be said that accused intended to cause death. Thus, the finding of acquittal, recorded by the trial court, subsequently reversed to the order of conviction u/s 302 IPC by the Madras High Court, was converted to Section 304 (Part II) IPC. It was held by the Apex Court that there may be complications but from that it cannot be said that the persons who received such injury would necessarily die. It was held by the Apex Court that there may be complications but from that it cannot be said that the persons who received such injury would necessarily die. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found it difficult to hold that the accused caused that particular injury with intention to cause death. 16. Likewise, in the instant case also, the injuries, as mentioned hereinabove, have been opined by the doctor to be not sufficient to cause the death of victim. We can, therefore, discern that even if it is accepted that the injuries were caused by the present appellant, then accepting the opinion and evidence of the medical officer, it is difficult to hold the appellant guilty for the offence covered by Clause-III of Section 300 of I.P.C. It would be relevant to quote the said clause which reads as under: - “300. Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if ……………………………., or- Secondly-……………………………….. Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.” 17. In light of the above-discussion, we can safely infer that the instant case falls within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, in part, by convicting the appellant Pooran Ram @ Pooran Chandra u/s 304 (Part II) IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC, and sentence him to suffer R.I. for four years. At the same time, we modify the quantum of sentence awarded u/s 201 IPC from seven years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- to only four years’ R.I. It is, however, clarified that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the appellant/accused during the course of investigation, trial or appeal shall be adjusted from the punishment as modified by this Court, after verifying the records. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent to the court concerned for compliance.