JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below the judgment dated 12.11.1990 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 59/88:- Appellants:- Pratap, Kachru, Govindlal and Ratan Offence under Section Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 100/- 2 weeks' Additional S.I. Appellant:- Kachru Offence under Section Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine 307 IPC 5 Years' RI Rs. 5000/- 1 Year & 3 Months Additional RI. 2. They have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentences passed against them by the trial court. 3. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- Ramesh Chandra (PW. 2) lodged an oral report (Ex. P2) at the Police Station Kalinjra on 19.06.1988 at about 7:30 AM alleging inter alia that in the morning at about 6 O' Clock, his grandfather Ratanji S/o. Shri Meghji and one Shri Meghji S/o. Shri Kodarji Patidar, both residents of Bagidora were proceeding for the village Nogama. About half an hour later, i.e., at about 6:30 AM, his brother Jagdish Chandra came and told him that Shri Ratanji and Meghji were being beaten near the village Regniya by Pratap S/o. Shri Meghji, Ratna S/o. Shri Meghji, Kacharu S/o. Shri Meghji and Govind S/o. Shri Kacharu Patidar, all residents of Bagidora by sticks owing to a long-standing land dispute. On hearing this, the informant along with his brother Jagdish and Khemji and Vallabh, sons of Meghji rushed towards place of incident and saw the abovenamed accused persons running away. They went near the victims and saw that Ratanji had passed away whereas Meghji was injured seriously. Both were having visible bleeding wounds all over the body. A few more people came at spot whereafter Meghji (the injured) was sent to the Bagidora Hospital for treatment. Jagdish was left behind to guard the dead body and Shri Ramesh Chandra proceeded to the police station for reporting the matter. 4. On the basis of this oral report, FIR No. 228/1988 (Ex. P3) came to be registered at the Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and investigation was commenced. 4. On the basis of this oral report, FIR No. 228/1988 (Ex. P3) came to be registered at the Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot. The dead body of Shri Ratanji was picked up and was sent to the Government Referral Hospital, Bagidora. Dr. Indra Narayan (PW. 1) conducted autopsy upon the dead body of Shri Ratanji taking note of the following injuries:- 1. Incised wound admeasuring 2 x 2 x 1 cm on right forearm 2. Incised wound admeasuring 1 x 1 cm on left corner of shoulder. 3. Bruise admeasuring 1 x 1 cm on left knee. 4. Bruise admeasuring 1 x 1 cm on right knee 5. Bruise admeasuring 4 x 4 cm on right posterior part of waist. 6. Bruise admeasuring 6 x 2 cm on left side of waist. 7. Bruise cum swelling on left shoulder posteriorly 8. Bruise cum swelling on left shoulder posteriorly 5. The doctor stated that on internal examination, Ribs No. 6 to 10 on left as well as right side were fractured. Thoracic cage was compressed. Both lungs were ruptured as a result of the fracture of ribs. The Medical Jurist opined the cause of death to be intra-thoracic and intra-abdominal bleeding associated with shock caused by fracture of ribs. The injury to the ribcage was visible from naked eyes. The fractures caused to the ribs were opined to be individually and cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Postmortem report (Ex. P1) was issued by Dr. Indra Narayan (PW. 1). Shri Meghji had been referred to Government Hospital, Banswara for treatment where he was examined by Dr. Bajrang Singh (PW. 9) who issued the medico legal report (Ex. P/8) taking note of the following injuries on the body of Shri Meghji. 1. Contusion admeasuring 4 x 2 cm on left pectoral region. 2. Contusion admeasuring 2 x 1 cm on anterior region of left arm 3. Contusion admeasuring 3 x 1 cm on upper one-third part of posterior region of left forearm 4. Lacerated wound admeasuring 1/2 x 1/4 cm into deep skin on left ring finger 5. Contusion admeasuring 20 x 3 cm on posterior trunk on right side with surgical emphysema and hematoma 6. Contusion admeasuring 3 x 1 cm on upper one-third part of posterior region of left forearm 4. Lacerated wound admeasuring 1/2 x 1/4 cm into deep skin on left ring finger 5. Contusion admeasuring 20 x 3 cm on posterior trunk on right side with surgical emphysema and hematoma 6. Contusion admeasuring 10 X 3 cm left side of trunk 7. Contusion admeasuring 10 x 3 cm on right scapular region. 8. Contusion admeasuring 6 X 3 cm on left scapular region. 9. Abrasion admeasuring 1 x 1/2 cm on left foot dorsum. 6. The accused appellants were arrested and as is usual, the weapons of offence were recovered at their instance. After concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 302/34, 307, 325 and 323 IPC. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Banswara where charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 and in alternative 302/34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons. Additional charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was framed against the appellant Kacharu. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused persons denied the same but did not lead any oral evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial judge, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above vide the judgment dated 12.11.1990 which is assailed in this appeal. 7. Shri Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel representing the appellants vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The evidence of witnesses Ramesh Chandra (PW. 2) and Jagdish Chandra (PW. 4) is not corroborated and is rather contradicted by the evidence of injured witness Meghji (PW. 3). He submitted that neither was it mentioned in the oral report (PW. 2) that Ramesh Chandra was told about the names/identity of the accused by the injured witness Shri Meghji nor did Shri Meghji himself make any such statement. 4) is not corroborated and is rather contradicted by the evidence of injured witness Meghji (PW. 3). He submitted that neither was it mentioned in the oral report (PW. 2) that Ramesh Chandra was told about the names/identity of the accused by the injured witness Shri Meghji nor did Shri Meghji himself make any such statement. Thus, Shri Mathur urged that there is a grave doubt as to how the names of the accused were introduced in the oral report. He further submitted that the prosecution tried to prove prior enmity on the strength of some land litigation instituted inter-se between the parties. However that case was decided long before the incident and thus, the accused had no motive whatsoever to inflict the injuries to the deceased or the injured. As per Shri Mathur, the incident seems to have taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation and thus, even if it is assumed that the accused assaulted the deceased and the injured then too, all the injuries were caused on the non-vital parts of the body. The accused were four in number and were armed with weapons but still they consciously chose not to land even a single blow on the head or any other vital body part of either Shri Ratanji or Shri Meghji. Thus, if at all, the guilt of the appellants is to be sustained, then at best, they can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. He implored the Court to modify the impugned judgment with suitable reduction in sentences awarded to the appellants. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. They urged that the appellants herein waylaid the two helpless victims Ratanji, aged 65 years and Meghji aged 60 years while they were casually proceeding together. They were waylaid by the accused and were assaulted brutally by sharp as well as blunt weapons. The accused intentionally selected thoracic area to land the blows. The intensity of the blows was so strong that four ribs of both sides of Ratanji were fractured to such extent that same were visible by naked eye. As a consequence, the thoracic cage got compressed and both the lungs got ruptured. Such kind of injuries would inevitably to death of the victim. The intensity of the blows was so strong that four ribs of both sides of Ratanji were fractured to such extent that same were visible by naked eye. As a consequence, the thoracic cage got compressed and both the lungs got ruptured. Such kind of injuries would inevitably to death of the victim. Countering the defence submissions regarding source of information for mentioning the names of the accused in the FIR, learned Public Prosecutor drew the Court's attention to the statement of Jagdish Chandra (PW. 4) who stated that on 19.06.1988, at about 6 O' Clock in the morning, he was going to attend the call of nature and saw the accused appellants assaulting Ratanji and Meghji by axe (held by Pratap) and lathis (held by other accused persons). Jagdish immediately rushed to the village and came back to the spot with Ramesh, Khemji and Vallabh. When they reached the spot, the accused persons were proceeding towards the Harijan Mohalla. Meghji was lying down in the field of Lalu whereas Ratanji had expired. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the entire incident of beating was witnessed by Jagdish who called the other witnesses and thus, there was no difficulty for Ramesh to have identified and named the accused in the FIR. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the deposition of medical jurist PW. 1 Dr. Indra Narayan clearly establishes that repeated blows were landed by the accused persons on the vital area of body of the deceased i.e., the thoracic cage. The blows were very forceful and fractured four ribs on both the left as well as right side causing rupture of the lungs leading to excessive bleeding which caused instantaneous death of Shri Ratanji at the spot. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the intention as well as knowledge to commit murder can definitely be attributed to the accused appellants. They had strong motive to harm Shri Ratanji because of the long-standing land dispute which fact was proved by reliable evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court has appreciated the evidence available on record in an apropos manner. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. On these grounds, he implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court has appreciated the evidence available on record in an apropos manner. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. On these grounds, he implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 10. The main contention of Shri Mathur to assail the conviction of the appellants was that mentioning of the names of the accused persons in the oral report lodged by Shri Ramesh Chandra (PW. 2) brings the entire prosecution case under a cloud of doubt. His submission was based on the fact that the injured Meghji (PW. 3) did not state that he share the names of the assailants with either the informant Ramesh Chandra (PW. 2) or any other witness, who came at the spot. We have considered the said submission which is having no merit whatsoever. The eye-witness Jagdish (PW. 4) gave convincing evidence stating that on 19.06.1988, at about 6:00 AM, he was proceeding from his house for attending the call of nature. He saw the accused appellants assaulting Ratanji and Meghji in between the fencing of the fields of Kacharu and Lalu Patidar. The accused Pratap was armed with an axe whereas the remaining three were armed with lathis. Pratap inflicted an axe blow to Ratanji but the witness could not say where precisely the blow landed. The witness stated that Kacharu was hitting Meghji and all accused were assaulting Ratanji. The witness claimed to have seen the incident from a distance of 100 feet whereafter he rushed to the village and told Ramesh, Khemji and Vallabh of the incident whereafter all of them proceeded to the spot. When they reached the crime scene, the accused persons were seen proceeding towards the Harijan Mohalla. Apparently thus, the witness Jagdish saw the incident with his own eyes and Ramesh too saw the accused persons going away from the place of incident after completing the assault. The statement of Jagdish regarding the manner in which the incident was perpetrated is fully corroborated by the evidence of the injured witness Shri Meghji (PW. 3). Apparently thus, the witness Jagdish saw the incident with his own eyes and Ramesh too saw the accused persons going away from the place of incident after completing the assault. The statement of Jagdish regarding the manner in which the incident was perpetrated is fully corroborated by the evidence of the injured witness Shri Meghji (PW. 3). Thus, there is no suspicious circumstance in the fact that names of the assailants were mentioned in the oral report submitted by Ramesh because such detail was known to Ramesh himself and his brother Jagdish the eye-witness who also told him that these assailants had beaten Ratanji and Meghji. 11. Now, we proceed to discuss the evidence of the injured witness Meghji (PW. 3) who stated that he and Ratanji were proceeding towards Nogama. On the way, Pratap, Kacharu, Ratna and Govind, the appellants surrounded them. Pratap was armed with an axe and the remaining three assailants were armed with lathis. All initially assaulted Ratanji by their respective weapons who fell down injured. Thereafter, Kacharu started assaulting him. Meghji was categoric in his version that only Kacharu gave him the blows of lathi. Ratanji expired in a few minutes. Fifteen minutes later, Jaggu S/o. Shri Vakta, Mahendra and Khemji came there and took him to the Bagidora hospital and then, he was taken to the Banswara Hospital. He was also taken to the Ahmedabad hospital for treatment of spine injuries. The witness further stated that the accused had assaulted Ratanji because of a long-standing land dispute which had been instituted in courts at Kushalgarh, Udaipur, Revenue Board, Ajmer and also in the High Court. All the courts decided the dispute in favour of Ratanji. The witness stated that he was assisting Ratanji and that is why, he was also beaten. In the entire cross-examination conducted from this witness, not a single word was put to him that he had any motive to falsely implicate the accused in this case. No argument was made on behalf of defence that the witness Meghji had any animosity against the accused. Thus, he had no cause to falsely implicate the accused for the crime. The fact that the witness Meghji categorically stated that all injuries inflicted on his body were caused by Kacharu convinces us regarding his truthfulness. No argument was made on behalf of defence that the witness Meghji had any animosity against the accused. Thus, he had no cause to falsely implicate the accused for the crime. The fact that the witness Meghji categorically stated that all injuries inflicted on his body were caused by Kacharu convinces us regarding his truthfulness. If at all the witness had a motive to falsely implicate the accused persons, he could have attributed his multiple injuries to all the assailants. The evidence of the injured witness Shri Meghji is wholly reliable and is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. 12. Dr. Indra Narayan (PW. 1) conducted autopsy on the body of Ratanji and issued the postmortem report (Ex. P/1) wherein as many as eight injuries were noticed including fracture of humerus bone and a sharp weapon injury on the back side of right shoulder, fracture of radius and ulna bones on the left hand and fracture of ribs nos. 6 to 10 on both sides associated with rupture of lungs. The doctor categorically stated that injuries to the ribs leading to rupture of lungs were individually sufficient to cause death of Shri Ratanji in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Bajrang Singh (PW. 9) proved the injury report of Shri Meghji taking note of fracture of four ribs. 13. The irrefutable conclusion as emerging from the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses is that the accused waylaid the two victims in the early hours of 19.06.1988 while they were proceeding towards Nogama. The accused were armed with dangerous weapons viz., axe and lathis. They gave indiscriminate blows of their respective weapons to the victims. The prosecution has proved the motive attributed to the accused for committing the offence which was a long-standing land dispute for which litigation had also taken place. Resultantly, there is no hesitation for this Court to affirm the findings recorded by the trial court that the accused appellants herein waylaid and assaulted the two victims fueled by the motive of the previous land dispute and in this process, they intentionally caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Shri Ratanji and life-threatening injuries to Shri Meghji. Thus, the conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial court for the above offences is absolutely justified. Thus, the conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial court for the above offences is absolutely justified. The impugned judgment has been passed after a thorough and apropos appreciation of the material facts and evidence available on record and the same does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. 14. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall surrender before the trial court within next thirty days whereafter they shall be transmitted to the concerned prison for serving out the sentences awarded to them by the trial court. In case, the appellants fail to surrender within next thirty days, the trial court shall forthwith secure their presence by issuing warrants of arrest. 15. Record be returned to the trial court immediately.