JUDGMENT : G.K. Vyas, J. 1. In this Cr. appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.RC. the appellants Amrit Pal @ Chhotu, Sunil Kumar @ Chhaga, Vishnu Kumar, Subhash @ Papiya and Kailash @ Sheru are assailing the validity of the judgment dated 26.9.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 4/2006 by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FT) No. 1, Hanumangarh by which the learned trial court while holding the accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 147, 364, 302/149, 201 and 323/149 IPC passed the following sentences: Under Section 147 IPC Each 2 years R1 with fine of Rs.500/- in default of the same to further undergo for a period of one month's R1 Under Section 364 IPC Each 10 years R1 with fine of Rs.2000/- in default of the same to further undergo a period of three month's R1 Under Section 302/149 IPC Each sentence of Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10000/- in default of the same to further undergo a period of six month's R1 Under Section 201 IPC Each 3 years R1 with fine of Rs.2000/-in default of the same to further undergo a period of three month's R1 Under Section 323/149 IPC Each year RI (sic.). 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 10.6.2005 the complainant Vinod Kumar (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Station Hanumangarh Town alleging therein that on 5.10.2005 (sic.) his brother Vijay Singh and one Balveer Singh Jat got down from train at Railway Station Sherekan at 6.15 p.m. When they were proceeding towards Senior Secondary School, in between the way, accused namely Subhash @ Papiya, Kailash, Chhotu Singh, Sunil Kumar, Vishnu were standing there along near the jeep Tata Sumo No. RJ-14/9920 of Silver colour. The accused petitioners caught hold his brother Vijay Singh and Balveer Singh Jat and put them in the jeep forcibly and ran away from that place. At that time Devi Lal and Pankaj were also present on the spot and saw the incident. 3. The complainant Vinod Kumar along with Pankaj and Sanjay made search but not found, therefore, in the night they reported the incident to the police in writing vide Ex.P/2. Upon aforesaid information, FIR 503/2005 under Section 365/143 IPC (Ex.P/3) was registered and investigation was commenced by the Police Station Hanumangarh. 4. 3. The complainant Vinod Kumar along with Pankaj and Sanjay made search but not found, therefore, in the night they reported the incident to the police in writing vide Ex.P/2. Upon aforesaid information, FIR 503/2005 under Section 365/143 IPC (Ex.P/3) was registered and investigation was commenced by the Police Station Hanumangarh. 4. During investigation-it is found that Balveer Singh Jat murdered by the appellants and they gave severe beating to Vijay Singh brother of complainant. The police commended the investigation and after completing all the formalities including recovery and arrest of the accused appellants filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant Amrit Pal @ Chhotu, Vishnu Kumar and Sunil for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 392, 201, 147 and 149 IPC on 12.12.2005 in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The investigation against accused appellant Subhash and Kailash was kept pending under Section 173 (8) of Cr.PC. The case of the accused appellants was committed to the Sessions Court for trial, consequently, it was transferred to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FT) No. 1, Hanumangarh. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellants Sunil Amritpal @ Chhotu and Vishnu Kurnar for the offences under Sections 147, 364, 302/149 and 201 IPC but they denied the charges and prayed for trial. 5. In the trial statements of PW-1 Vijay and PW-2 Vinod Kumar were recorded, thereafter, on 22.8.2005 the police filed supplementary challan against remaining two co-accused Subhash @ Papiya and Kailash @ Dheru under Sections 364, 302, 392, 201, 147, 149 IPC in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, but later on transferred to the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Hanumangarh The charges were framed by the learned trial court against Subhash @ Papiya and Kailash @ Dheru (co-accused) under Section 147, 364, 302/149 and 201 IPC. However, all the accused were discharged from the charges levelled against them under Section 392 IPC. The learned trial court further framed charge under Section 323/149 IPC on 21.01.2006 against all the accused, but they denied charge and prayed for trial. 6. In the trial, again statements of PW-1 Vijay Singh, PW-2 Vinod Kumar were recorded and thereafter statements of PW- 3 Dr. The learned trial court further framed charge under Section 323/149 IPC on 21.01.2006 against all the accused, but they denied charge and prayed for trial. 6. In the trial, again statements of PW-1 Vijay Singh, PW-2 Vinod Kumar were recorded and thereafter statements of PW- 3 Dr. Jaspal Badgappa, PW-4 Pankaj Bishnoi, PW-5 Devi Lal, PW-6 Santosh, PW-7 Om Prakash, PW-8 Darshan Singh, PW-9 Ram Swaroop, PW-10 Ram Kumar, PW-11 Leeladnar, PW-12 Krishan Kumar, PW-13 Tejpal Singh, PW-14 Chand Singh, PW- 15 Bheem Singh, PW-16 Mani Ram, PW-17 Bhanwar Singh, PW-18 Krishan Chand (Sharma) and PW-19 Antar Singh were recorded. In the trial, 61 documents were exhibited and 7 articles were produced by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused appellants. 7. After recording evidence of prosecution, the learned trial court recorded statements of all the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.PC. on the basis of allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses. 8. The accused appellant Amrit Pal @ Chhotu and Sunil said that they have been implicated in this false case due to political rivalry and allegations made by prosecution witnesses are totally false. The accused Subhash @ Papiya stated before the court that he has been indulged in this case falsely due to political revenge because his wife Laxmi Devi was Ex-Sarpanch of village Sherkha. The accused appellant Kailash @ Dheru stated in his statement that all the allegations made are due to political reasons. After recording their statement in defence 70 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, learned trial court finally heard the matter and passed the judgment dated 26.9.2011 whereby all the five accused appellants were held guilty for offences under Sections 147, 364, 302/149, 201 and 323/149 IPC and passed the sentence against the aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that all the accused appellants are innocent and they have been implicated due to political rivalry and statement of PW-2 Vinod Kumar is totally unreliable because he is real brother of injured eye witness, who has concocted a false story, therefore, the finding given by the learned trial court while relying upon the testimony of this witness deserves to be disbelieved. However, it is submitted that even if the testimony of injured eye witness PW-2 Vijay Singh is accepted coupled with medical evidence which is post mortem report (Ex.P/6) it is obvious that learned trial court has committed a gross illegality to hold accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 302/149 IPC because the offence cannot travel beyond offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, instead of offence under Section 302 IPC. The eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh stated before the court that injuries were caused by hand and leg in the vehicle to the deceased, so also, to the witness PW-1 Vijay Singh himself, but none of the injuries were found upon the vital part of the body. It is also argued that the main ingredient of murder which is "intention" and "motive" is absent in this case because as per the prosecution evidence, the deceased Balveer Singh and eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh were forcibly put in the Tata Sumo Jeep by the accused appellants and inside the vehicle they assaulted them and due to the injuries caused by hand and leg, the deceased Balveer Singh died. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that as per the statement of eye witness no weapon was used by the appellants and injuries were caused by hand and leg to the deceased, so also to the witness PW-1 Vijay Singh. It emerges from the facts that deceased Balveer and eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh were assaulted only to teach lesson to them, therefore, in absence of motive or intention and upon the fact that no weapon was used to cause injures, the finding given by the learned trial court for commission of offence under Section 302/149 IPC is not sustainable in law. The thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that even if the testimony of eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh is accepted then also, the finding of guilt under Section 302/149 IPC given by the learned trial court so as to hold accused appellants guilty for offence of murder is not sustainable in law, therefore it is prayed that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court for offence under Section 302/149 IPC given by the learned trial Court so as to hold accused appellants guilty for offence of murder is not sustainable in law, therefore it is prayed that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial court for offence under Section 302/149 IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted that after causing injuries the accused appellants not only made of forts for treatment of the deceased while taking him to Dr. Gurbux Singh at Village Salamgarh but accused appellant Amrit Pal and injured both went to the police station Hanumangarh to give information, therefore, it is submitted that appellants are challenging the judgment of conviction to the extent of offence under Section 302/149 IPC and sentence of the imprisonment passed against the appellants for the said offence because prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention towards the following judgments : 1. SCC 2006 (9) 678 : Rajpal Singh & Ors. v. State 2. SCC 2006 (9) 211 : Prahlad Krishant Patil v. State 3. Cri. LR 2015(2) (SC) 114 : Dilip Kumar v. State 4. Cr. LR 2015(1) (Raj.) 515 : Vachna Ram v. State 5. 2016(1) CJ (Cri) (Raj.) 270 : Dhanraj & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 10. On the basis of above arguments and judgments it is prayed that while maintaining the conviction and sentences of other offences the conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellants for offence under Section 302/149 IPC may be altered to the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence of life imprisonment may be reduced to already undergone by them. 11. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is a case in which the deceased and eye witness FW-1 Vijay Singh were forcibly taken in the jeep Tata Sumo and in the jeep they were severely beaten by the accused appellants and due to the injuries caused deceased Balveer Singh Jat died and, thereafter, they threw the dead body of Balveer Singh in the canal while destroying his face, therefore, no lenient view should be taken in this case because number of injuries were caused by the accused appellants loudly speaks that there was intention of the accused appellants to kill Balveer Singh deceased, therefore, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder deserves to be rejected. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that it is a fit case in which the learned trial court rightly held accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 302/149 IPC on the basis of evidence of eye witness PW-2 Vijay Singh. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are not challenging the incident and their participation in the occurrence but assailing the judgment to the extent of finding arrived by the trial court to hold accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 302/149 IPC, none else. 14. We have examined the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The finding of trial court of the offence of murder is based upon the testimony of PW-1 Vijay Singh and PW-2 Vinod Kumar, whose statements were recorded twice in the trial. The first statement of PW-1 Vijay Singh was recorded on 26.4.2005 when charge-sheet was filed against only three accused appellants Sunil Kumar @ Chhaga, Amrit Pal @ Chhotu and Vishnu Kumar and later on when supplementary charge-sheet was filed against two more accused appellants Subhash @ Papiya and Kailash @ Sheru for the same offence on 22.8.2005. The learned trial court after framing charge against them again recorded statements of PW-1 Vijay Singh and PW-2 Vinod Kumar. 15. Upon perusal of the entire judgment and findings given by the trial court it is revealed that the learned trial court has relied upon the testimony of injured eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh. The learned trial court after framing charge against them again recorded statements of PW-1 Vijay Singh and PW-2 Vinod Kumar. 15. Upon perusal of the entire judgment and findings given by the trial court it is revealed that the learned trial court has relied upon the testimony of injured eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh. The witness PW-1 Vijay Singh gave following statement on oath in the trial on 10.1.2007 and made following allegations in the examination-in-chief, which reads as under: ^^fnukad 05-10-2005 dh ckr gSA eSa o cyohj guqekux<+ vk;s Fks lqcg vk;s Fks tks lqcg 10 cts vk;s FksA esjs iq= dk tUe izek.k i= pUnzk Vs~oYl ls Hkstuk FkkA mlds ckn eSa vkSj cyohj 'kke dks guqekux<+ ls jsyxkM+h esa 'ksjsdka x;sA 'ksjsdka LVs'ku ij mrj dj QkVd ds ikl [kM+s FksA dSyk'k] lquhy] fo".kq ve`riky pkjksa QkVd ij [kM+s FksA ve`riky dks NksVw Hkh dgrs gSaA dSyk'k dks 'ks: Hkh dgrs gSaA ;s pkjksa gekjs ls ckr djus yxs fd dgka ls vk;s gksA geus mudks ;g crk;k fd ge Vkmu ls vk;s gSa vkSj xkWao dh rjQ pyus yxsA Ldwy ds ikl ,d VkVk lweks [kM+h Fkh] ftlds uEcj vkj0ts0 14] 5lh] 9920 FksA mldh fiNyh lhV ij iIiw mQZ lqHkk"k cSBk FkkA ge thi ds ikl x;s rks thi dk xsV [kqyk Fkk esjs cky idM+dj iIiw us eq>s vUnj [khap fy;k o 'ks: us ihNs ls /kDdk ns fn;kA cyohj dks Hkh rhuksa eqyfteku us /kDdk nsdj thi ds vanj Mky fn;kA fQj ,dne NksVw us thi LVkVZ dhA fo".kq us esjs eqag ij gkFk ns fn;k vkSj cyohj ds eqag ij lquhy us gkFk ns fn;kA dSyk'k vkSj lqHkk"k chp okyh lhV ij cSB x;sA mUgksaus thi ,dne ls LVkVZ dh vkSj gekjs lkFk /kDdk&eqDdh lqHkk"k o dSyk'k us dhA fQj thi guqekux<+ jksM+ ij yxk nh o >kEcj okys QkVd dks dzkl djds >kEcj gksrs gq, lkbZM ds jkLrs esa ,l0,l0 MCY;w0 ugj dzkl dj x;s o vkxs >kEcj dh <+k.kh dzkl dj x;s rFkk ds0,l0ih0 ugj dh iVjh&2 gksrs gq, lseukyk ij vk x;sA lseukyk ls uhps dPps jkLrs ij vk x;s ogka ,d [kkyh [ksr Fkk ogka thi jksd nhA thi dks jksd dj cyohj dks 'ks:] lqHkk"k] dSyk'k lquhy us uhps xsj fn;k fQj mlds lkFk ,dne ekjihV djus yx x;sA tks jkbo Mkaxksa ls ihVus yxsA mlh le; esjs dks Hkh uhps fxjk fn;k esjs dks Hkh pkjksa us /kDdk fn;kA ve`riky us esjs eqWag ij gkFk ns fn;k vkSj 'ks: o iIiw ekjihV djus yx x;s vkSj lquhy us esjs iSj idM+ fy;sA esjs dks ekjk rc eSaus gkFk tksM+h dh vkSj ekQh ekWaxhA lqHkk"k us dgk fd esjh iRuh ds f[kykQ f'kdk;r dh gS ge vkidks NksM+saxs ughaA eSaus ekQh ekaxh fd dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha d:axkA fQj bruh nsj esa lseukyk ls ykbZV iM+h fd dksbZ lk/ku vk jgk gksA fQj eq>s thi esa cSBk fy;k vkSj cyohj dks Hkh thi esa Mky fn;kA cyohj csgks'k gks x;kA fQj gedks lysex<+ ys x;sA lysex<+ ,d MkWDVj xqjcD'k dks mBk;kA MkW0 xqjcD'k us xsV [kksyk vkSj xsV [kksydj dgk fd bldh gkyr xaHkhj gS bldks guqekux<+ ys tkvksA^^ 16. The learned counsel for the appellants are not challenging the conviction and sentence for other offences under Section 147, 364, 201 and 323/149 IPC, but challenging conviction and sentence for offence under Section 302/149 IPC. We have minutely perused the statements of eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh. In the statement of PW-1 Vijay Singh it is nowhere stated by him that injuries were caused by any weapon, so also, none of the injuries was caused upon the vital part of the body of the deceased. It is also one of the important facts as per the statement of the witness PW-1 Vijay Singh that due to the beatings, Balveer Singh became unconscious, therefore, the accused appellants took him to the house of Dr. Gurbux Singh in the village Salemgarh where Dr. Gurbux said that his condition is not good, therefore, for treatment, he may be taken to the hospital at Hanumangarh. Meaning thereby, according to the eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh himself, made efforts for treatment of deceased after assaulting him, but unfortunately, deceased died in between the way, therefore, they destroyed his face and threw the body in the canal so as to destroy the evidence. It is also emerges from the statement of PW-1 Vijay Singh that before death no injuries were caused by sharp or blunt weapon upon the vital part of the body, therefore, even if the statement of PW-1 Vijay Singh is accepted then also it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the case for committing offence under Section 302/149 IPC. 17. We have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the evidence no offence under Section 302/149 IPC is made out, more so, on the basis of evidence on record, the accused appellants can be held guilty for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC along with other offences. 18. We have considered the limited argument of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid judgments. In the injury report (Ex.P/5) of the eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh 8 injuries were found upon his body, but none of the injuries was found upon the vital part of the body. The injuries no.1 to 7 is multiple bruises and injury no.9 is pain (sic.). In the injury report (Ex.P/5) of the eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh 8 injuries were found upon his body, but none of the injuries was found upon the vital part of the body. The injuries no.1 to 7 is multiple bruises and injury no.9 is pain (sic.). Similarly, in the post mortem report all the injuries found upon the body of the deceased Balveer Singh were caused on non-vital parts of the body and there is no allegation of eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh in his statement that injuries were caused by any weapon upon any vital part of body, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that as per the evidence of eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh and statement of PW-3 Dr. Jaspal Badgappa, although a number of injuries were found upon the body of the deceased and injured, but this Court cannot lose its sight of the fact that as per the allegation of prosecution the eye witness PW-1 Vijay Singh as well as the deceased Balveer Singh were forcibly put in the vehicle and inside the vehicle they were assaulted by the accused appellants by hand, no injury was caused by any weapon. In our opinion, on facts, it is clear that as per statement of eye witness the injuries were caused upon the non-vital parts of the body, therefore, it is obvious that there was no intention of the accused appellants to kill deceased Balveer Singh. If the accused appellants had the intention to kill the deceased or the eye witness, they would have inflicted the injury upon vital parts of the body and not upon the non-vital parts of the body. As per the prosecution case, no weapon was used, more so, the appellants took the deceased Balveer Singh to the hospital for treatment, but in between the way he died. Thus, it is clear from the evidence that there was no intention of the accused appellants to cause death per-se. The multiple injuries were caused with the intention to teach lesson to the deceased and the eye witness and therefore, the offence does not fall within Section 302 IPC but falls under Section 304 Part II IPC. 19. In the case of Gafoor & Ors, v. State of Rajasthan reported in Cr.LR (Raj.) 1983 the Division Bench of this Court gave the following adjudication in paras nos. 19. In the case of Gafoor & Ors, v. State of Rajasthan reported in Cr.LR (Raj.) 1983 the Division Bench of this Court gave the following adjudication in paras nos. 10 and 18, which read as under: 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us. It is a serious question in the instant case as to what was the common object of the unlawful assembly? Was it simple giving of severe thrashing or beating with Pharsa and Lathis? So far as spears are concerned, it appears were not used, or the common object was to cause murder of Atar Khan and Hulia? For the determination of this question, relations between the parties are quite significant. Along with the relations, what culminated in the occurrence, cannot also be ignored. Along with relations and the background, in which the occurrence took place, the injuries, which had been inflicted in the occurrence, are also required to be given due consideration. But the first two factors need to be given much more weight and predominantly those factors would give us the clue to the state of mind of the assailant-party. Makbooli (P.W.1) and other witnesses have clearly stated that before this so occurrence they had no quarrel with the accused persons. They had love and affection with each other. The accused persons were not inimical or hostile to them and the members of both the parties are the descendants of a common ancestor. When such were the relations between the members of the two parties, then it is unbelievable that in the background of a trifle incident of stealing, the members of the accused-party, would have formed a common object to kill any member of the victim-party. So looking to the relations and the circumstances, which led to occurrence, it cannot reasonably be inferred, said and found an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill any members or member of the complainant party. Even the injuries on the person of Atar Khan and Hulla indicate that such was not the common object of the unlawful assembly, as there were only single blow on the heads of both. The other injuries mostly are of limbs and other non-vital parts of the body. Even the injuries on the person of Atar Khan and Hulla indicate that such was not the common object of the unlawful assembly, as there were only single blow on the heads of both. The other injuries mostly are of limbs and other non-vital parts of the body. On the person of Mulla, there were two grievous injuries caused by blunt object resulting into fracture of tibia and fibula bones of the right leg and fracture of nasal bone. There was one lacerated wound on the left parietal occipital region. Besides a fatal blow on the head with sharp weapon, there were two incised wounds, one on the left forearm and the other on the left scapular region, Atar Khan had only one head injury and there were no other injuries on any vital part of the body, although he had eight incised wounds and as a result of incised wound, his ulna bone was also cut. The death of the two had also not been instantaeous. From the injuries as well, thus, it can be inferred that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause grievous injuries on the person of Atar Khan and Hulla and any one or two members of the unlawful assembly exceeded the common object and inflicted fatal blows on the heads of Atar Khan and Mulla. Still the question is that when the members of the assailant-party were armed with Pharsas and Lathis and intended to open attack with such lethal weapons causing grievous injuries, whether knowledge can be attributed to them that their actions may be likely to result in death? In order that the case may fall under the second part of Section 149, IPC (sic.), the prosecution is required to establish not only the mere possibility of action resulting into the death, but a probability of that and a definite knowledge on the part of the assailant-party of that probability. 18. In the light of the circumstances considered above we are of the opinion that the common object of the appellants was only to cause grievous hurts and not to kill any one and it also cannot be found that the appellants knew that the offence of murder is likely to be committed. In view of this finding, in our opinion, the convictions of the appellants, other than Rujdar, for the offence under Sect. In view of this finding, in our opinion, the convictions of the appellants, other than Rujdar, for the offence under Sect. 302/149, IPC, deserve to be set aside. So far as the convictions and sentences of Rujdar are concerned for the various offences, they also deserve to be set aside in entirety, as it has been found that he was a member of the unlawful assembly, is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 20. Upon identical facts of this case, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanraj & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 270 while considering the fact that 21 injuries were caused to the deceased, but not on vital parts of the body, held that offence cannot travel beyond offence under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The paras nos. 13 to 16 of the said judgment are relevant, which read as under: 13. Without going into a detailed analysis of the evidence, suffice it to say that even if the prosecution story were to be accepted on its face value, the issue before this court is whether the large number of injuries reveal an intention to kill or merely to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution claims that Maya Ram, Mahaveer, Dhanraj, Ramsahai and Ramphool, i.e. five persons out of the six appellants were armed with sharp-edged weapons, yet not a single injury by a sharp edged weapon has been discovered. If the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor were accepted that these injuries were caused from the non-sharp side of the weapons, then obviously the intention was not to cause death of Ghasi Lal. If the appellants actually intended to cause his death, then nothing prevented them from using the sharp side of the weapons. 14. Moreover, a bare perusal of the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.24) reveals that all the injuries have been caused to the non-vital parts of the body. The injuries exist either on the arms or on the legs of Ghasi Lal. If the appellants had the intention to kill him,, they would have gone for the vital parts of the body and not for the non-vital ones. Thus, their intention was not to cause his death per se. The injuries exist either on the arms or on the legs of Ghasi Lal. If the appellants had the intention to kill him,, they would have gone for the vital parts of the body and not for the non-vital ones. Thus, their intention was not to cause his death per se. But having caused multiple injuries with the intention to teach him a lesson, the appellants would have known that they are likely to cause his death. Thus, the offence does not fall within Section 302 IPC, but falls within Section 304 Part-II IPC. 15. In the case of Kashi Ram and others v. State of M.P. [ (2002) 1 SCC 71 ], the Apex Court also dealt with a case where the injuries were on the lower part of the body of deceased. Considering the fact that the injuries were on the non-vital parts of the body, the Apex Court converted the offence from one under Section 302 IPC, to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 16. For the reasons stated above, while this court converts the offence from one under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part-II IPC, and reduces the sentences from life imprisonment to seven years. But this court maintains their convictions for offences Sections 148 and 341 IPC, and confirms the sentences as awarded by the learned Trial Court." 21. In all other cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "intention is to be gathered from entire evidence and if intention and motive of murder is absent then it cannot be said that offence is punishable under Section 302 IPC. The facts and evidence of particular case is required to be considered independently at the time of adjudication of case. 22. Upon careful consideration and taking into account the way in which the occurrence has taken place, we are of the opinion that learned trial court has committed an error to hold the accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 302/149 IPC instead under Section 304 Part II IPC. 22. Upon careful consideration and taking into account the way in which the occurrence has taken place, we are of the opinion that learned trial court has committed an error to hold the accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 302/149 IPC instead under Section 304 Part II IPC. The learned counsel for the appellants are challenging the judgment to the extent of finding for offence under Section 302/149 IPC and not the findings for other offences, therefore, we have considered the submissions and arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants to the extent of findings for conviction and sentence for offence under Section 302/149 IPC only. 23. Consequently, on the basis of above discussions, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 26.9.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 4/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC and they are held guilty for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and therefore the sentence of life imprisonment is hereby reduced to sentence for eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment. The conviction and sentence for other offences i.e., under Sections 147, 364, 201 and 323/149 IPC are hereby maintained.