Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 67 (UTT)

Sita Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-03-30

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Both these appeals arise from same incident, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2021 has been preferred by the appellant Sita Devi against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Special Session Trial No. 94 of 2017, State vs. Sita Devi, by the Fast Track Court/Special Judge, POCSO/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, District Dehradun (for short “the trial”). 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant Sita Devi has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, but she has been convicted under Sections 304 and 323 IPC and sentenced as hereunder: (i) Under Section 304 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. (ii) Under Section 323 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment. (iii) In default of payment of fine, it has further been directed that appellant Sita Devi shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2021 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Fast Track Court/Children Court/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Session Trial No. 89 of 2017, State vs. Rajesh Kumar (for short “the special trial”). By the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2021, the appellant Rajesh Kumar has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, but he has been convicted under Sections 304 and 323 IPC and sentenced as hereunder: (i) Under Section 304 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Under Section 323 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment. (iii) In default of payment of fine, it has further been directed that the appellant Rajesh Kumar shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. 5. In the Special Trial, the Court has directed that till appellant Rajesh Kumar attains the age of 21 years, he shall be confined in the safe place and thereafter, he shall be sent to jail to undergo the sentence. 6. It may be noted that the appellant Rajesh Kumar was above 16 years of age on the date of incident. The Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun (“the J.J. Board”) did preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) against the appellant Rajesh Kumar. 6. It may be noted that the appellant Rajesh Kumar was above 16 years of age on the date of incident. The Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun (“the J.J. Board”) did preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) against the appellant Rajesh Kumar. The J.J. Board on 27.10.2017 passed an order under Section 18 (3) of the Act holding that there is a need for trial of the appellant Rajesh Kumar as an adult. That is how the special trial proceeded, in which, the appellant Rajesh Kumar has been convicted and sentenced, as hereinbefore. 7. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: Deceased Sagar Tiwari was mentally ill, he was under treatment. He was staying with his mother Kamla Tiwari (the informant). The appellants were their neighbours. On 28.05.2017 at 7-8 in the evening, the appellants assaulted/attacked the deceased Sagar Tiwari and injured him. Due to this, deceased Sagar Tiwari sustained serious internal injuries. Considering the dispute as normal one, PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari did not get any treatment to him. On 07.06.2021, in the evening, the condition of Sagar Tiwari started deteriorating. He was immediately admitted in the Mahant Indresh Hospital (“the hospital”). The doctor, who examined him, found that there were serious injuries in his lungs and kidney. He was still in the hospital when the report was lodged by PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari on 12.06.2017 at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. Based on this report, Case Crime No. 138 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was lodged and investigation carried out. 8. The Investigating Officer (“the IO”) prepared site plan on 13.06.2017. He wanted to record the statement of deceased Sagar Tiwari in the hospital. On 19.06.2017, when the IO visited the hospital, the doctor denied him to take statement on the ground that the deceased was not in a condition of giving the statement. A T.V. remote control was taken into custody by the IO from PW-1 Kamla Tiwari. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted by the T.V. Remote Control also, which he had snatched & gave it to PW-1 Kamla Tiwari. On 23.06.2017, deceased Sagar Tiwari died. The inquest was done on 23.06.2017. A T.V. remote control was taken into custody by the IO from PW-1 Kamla Tiwari. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted by the T.V. Remote Control also, which he had snatched & gave it to PW-1 Kamla Tiwari. On 23.06.2017, deceased Sagar Tiwari died. The inquest was done on 23.06.2017. The witnesses of inquest opined that due to internal injuries on his head and stomach, deceased was admitted in the hospital and he died. Post-mortem of the body was also conducted on 23.06.2017. According to the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem traumatic chest injury. The hospital had also informed the police about the death of deceased Sagar Tiwari and the reason given was “assault c chest trauma c right lung contusion.” The IO also obtained a summary of the treatment which the deceased Sagar Tiwari had undergone in the hospital. It speaks as hereunder: “To whom it may concern Patient Mr. Sagar Tiwari, 28 years, Male S/o Late Ved Prakash R/o Naya Gaon Mohini Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, C.R. No. 19766/17 admitted in hospital when he present in emergency with alleged H/o assault around 4 days back from date of admission (07.06.2017). Patient was conscious, oriented to him place any person and has C/o pain (Rt.) side chest and abdomen. On examination P.R. was 132/per min and B.P. was 80 systolic mm hg. Abdomen was tender in RHC, but no guarding on rigidity. Air entry was reduced on (Rt.) side of chest. Due to (Rt.) Haemothorax-ICD was placed (Rt.) chest patient was admitted in HDU for observation. On investigation (CT thorax) (Rt.) lung contusion was diagnosed. Patient was not able to maintain his vitals so in view of lung injury intubation was done on 09.06.2017. Chest physician reference was done for further management of chest injury. NCCT head was done to rule out any head injury for which Neuro physician reference was done (in view of suspected infect). Tracheostomy was done on 21.06.2017. Patient expired on 23.06.2017 at around 5:30 A.M. due to critical condition.” 9. After investigation, charge-sheets were submitted separately against the appellants. 10. On 20.12.2017, charge under Sections 304, 323, 504 and 506 IPC were framed against the appellant Sita Devi to which she denied and claimed trial. 11. Tracheostomy was done on 21.06.2017. Patient expired on 23.06.2017 at around 5:30 A.M. due to critical condition.” 9. After investigation, charge-sheets were submitted separately against the appellants. 10. On 20.12.2017, charge under Sections 304, 323, 504 and 506 IPC were framed against the appellant Sita Devi to which she denied and claimed trial. 11. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Kamla Tiwari, PW-2 Gita, PW-3 Smt. Sarojni Kainthura, PW-4 Dr. Rahul Sharma, PW-5 S.I. Kailash Chandra Lakhera, PW-6 S.I. Pradyumman Aswal, PW-7 Dr. N.S. Tomar, PW-8 Anand Prakash, PW-9 S.I. Anil Kumar Binjola, PW-10 Devendra Singh Rawat and PW-11 Dr. Madhulta Rana. The appellant Smt. Sita Devi was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). She denied the allegations. According to her, the witnesses have given false evidence. She never committed marpeet; she is innocent. 12. In the special trial, the appellant Rajesh Kumar was charged for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 304 IPC on 22.02.2018. All the 11 witnesses, who were examined in the trial, have been examined in the special trial also. Appellant Rajesh Kumar was also examined under Sections 313 of the Code. According to him, the witnesses have given false evidence; they are innocent; they did not commit any marpeet. 13. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 14. As stated, evidence is one and same in the trial and in the special trial. But for the sake of convenience, whenever reference to documents is made, it is made from the record of the trial. If any document from the record of the special trial is to be referred, special mention shall be made to that effect. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the scribe of FIR has not been examined. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants ought to have been acquitted of the charge framed against them, but the court below committed an error in convicting the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants also raised the following points in his argument: (i) In the post-mortem report, no external injuries like redness, blueness etc. is noticed. (ii) Deceased Sagar Tiwari was under medication. Lung disorder may be caused due to medication. Learned counsel for the appellants also raised the following points in his argument: (i) In the post-mortem report, no external injuries like redness, blueness etc. is noticed. (ii) Deceased Sagar Tiwari was under medication. Lung disorder may be caused due to medication. (iii) On 07.06.2017, deceased Sagar Tiwari was taken to the hospital. He himself told to PW-4 Dr. Rahul Sharma that he sustained injuries in an assault which took place 4-5 days back. It is argued that according to the statement of the deceased Sagar Tiwari himself, he had sustained the injuries on 2nd and 3rd June, 2017 (those are the days falling 4-5 days prior to 07.06.2017, when he was admitted in the hospital). (iv) The IO did not take statement of the deceased. Deceased Sagar Tiwari was admitted in the hospital on 07.06.2017. FIR had already been lodged on 12.06.2017. PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana has stated that the deceased was in a condition to give statement till 18.06.2017. The IO could have recorded the statement. The statement of PW-9 S.I. Anil Kumar Binjola is not reliable. He has stated that on 14.06.2017, he was denied from taking the statement of deceased Sagar Tiwari by a nurse, on the ground that deceased Sagar Tiwari was unconscious and was on oxygen. (v) The statement of PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana also does not inspire confidence because according to her statement, the blood pressure of deceased Sagar Tiwari was much low when he was admitted in the hospital whereas, it is argued that in Ex.A5, the report given by this witness, the blood pressure systolic is recorded 80 mm hg, which is not low. (vi) FIR is delayed. PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari has stated that the deceased complained of pain on 07.06.2017. If the incident took place on 28.05.2017, the symptoms of lung contusion would have emerged on 1st and 2nd June, 2017. It is argued that it also belies the prosecution case. (vii) Medical evidence does not support oral evidence. 17. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the statement of PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari, PW-2 Gita and PW-3 Smt. Sarojni Kainthura are corroborative, they inspire confidence. PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari has categorically stated that for some days, she kept her son in the house. When his condition started deteriorating, she took him to the hospital. 17. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the statement of PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari, PW-2 Gita and PW-3 Smt. Sarojni Kainthura are corroborative, they inspire confidence. PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari has categorically stated that for some days, she kept her son in the house. When his condition started deteriorating, she took him to the hospital. PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari has also revealed that the symptoms were pain and heavy breathing. It is argued that such symptoms take place in the case of lung contusion. The lung contusion may be caused by the kind of beating given to the deceased Sagar Tiwari by the appellants. The deceased was hit on his chest and stomach by kicks and fists, which is the cause of the death. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that there is no specific medical evidence to the effect that the cause of death is due to the injuries sustained by the deceased on 28.05.2017. 19. PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari is mother of the deceased. According to her, the appellants were her neighbours. On 28.05.2017 at 7:30 in the evening, the appellants did marpeet with Sagar Tiwari. The appellant Sita Devi hit him with T.V. remote and the appellant Rajesh Kumar attacked deceased Sagar by kicks and fists while pushing him on a wall. Due to it, Sagar sustained injuries on his chest, head and neck. This witness did not get any treatment for him considering that the injuries may be simple. But, when the condition of Sagar Tiwari started deteriorating, she got him admitted in the hospital on 07.06.2017. He was admitted in the I.C.U. and died on 23.06.2017. According to PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari, her mental condition was not stable, therefore, she got FIR lodged through Surat Singh Bhandari. This witness proved FIR (Ex.A1). 20. According to PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari after marpeet the appellants abused and threaten her to life, deceased had snatched the T.V. remote from the appellant Sita Devi, which this witness had kept with her.When police demanded, she handed it over to police. 21. PW-2 Gita is daughter of the landlord. She has corroborated the statement of PW-1 Kamla Tiwari. According to PW-2 Gita, on 26.06.2017 at 7-8 in the evening, she saw that the appellants did marpeet with Sagar Tiwari with kicks and fists. 21. PW-2 Gita is daughter of the landlord. She has corroborated the statement of PW-1 Kamla Tiwari. According to PW-2 Gita, on 26.06.2017 at 7-8 in the evening, she saw that the appellants did marpeet with Sagar Tiwari with kicks and fists. Appellant Rajesh Tiwari was hitting him on his stomach with kicks and fists. The appellant Sita Devi was hitting him by a T.V. remote. 22. PW-3 Smt. Sarojni Kainthura has also corroborated the statement of PW-1 Kamla Tiwari and PW-2 Gita. According to her, on the date of incident, appellant Rajesh Kumar pushed the deceased to a wall and attacked him with kicks and fists, due to which, he sustained internal injuries. 23. PW-4 Dr. Rahul Sharma attended the deceased Sagar Tiwari at the hospital on 07.06.2017. He proves the documents prepared then, which is Ex.A3. According to it, the provisional diagnosis was “assault” (4-5 days back). This witness has also proved the report given to police (Ex.A4) and the summary of treatment given to deceased Sagar Tiwari prepared by Dr. Madhulita Rana (Ex.A5) which has already been quoted hereinabove. PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana is author of the certificate given by her to the police which is Ex.A5. She has proved it (it is also Ex.A23 in the record of the special trial). 24. PW-7 Dr. N.S. Tomar conducted the postmortem of body of the deceased Sagar Tiwari, he proves the post-mortem report (Ex.A15). According to it, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem traumatic chest injuries. 25. PW-5 Kailash Chandra Lakhera arrested the appellant, he proves the documents prepared by him. PW-6 Pradyumman Aswal prepared the inquest and sent the body for post-mortem. PW-8 Anand Prakash is a witness to the inquest. 26. PW-9 Anil Kumar Binjola conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan. According to him, he had gone to take the statement of deceased Sagar Tiwari, but on 19.06.2017, the doctor reported that the deceased Sagar Tiwari is not in a condition to give statement. PW-10 Devendra Singh Rawat finally conducted the investigation and submitted chargesheets against both the appellants. 27. PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari has been extensively cross-examined. She has revealed that after the incident of 28.05.2017, his son attended the duties till 05.06.2017. PW-10 Devendra Singh Rawat finally conducted the investigation and submitted chargesheets against both the appellants. 27. PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari has been extensively cross-examined. She has revealed that after the incident of 28.05.2017, his son attended the duties till 05.06.2017. According to her, when the condition of deceased Sagar Tiwari started deteriorating, he was taken to the hospital by her son-in-law Arjun and daughter Sonia. This fact is corroborated by Ex.A3. The first prescription prepared at the hospital on the arrival of deceased Sagar Tiwari. It records that the deceased was brought to the hospital by Arjun (brother-in-law). 28. The FIR was written by Surat Singh Bhandari. He has not been examined, but it does not affect the prosecution case because PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari has proved this FIR. She has stated that on her dictation, the FIR was written and it was read over to her and thereafter, she had signed it. She had admitted in her cross-examination that the landlord and his family members had also witnessed the incident. She did not see any open injuries on the deceased Sagar Tiwari after the incident. There were only two contusions on his head. 29. PW-2 Gita and PW-3 Smt. Sarojini Kainthura have corroborated the statement of PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination which may in any manner doubt their credibility. All the three witnesses have stated that after the incident deceased Sagar Tiwari had joined his duties. As stated PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari has categorically stated that when the condition of deceased Sagar Tiwari started deteriorating, he was admitted to the hospital. The statements of PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari, PW-2 Gita and PW-3 Smt. Sarojni Kainthura are reliable and credible. The statements of PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari, PW-2 Gita and PW-3 Smt. Sarojni Kainthura prove that on 28.05.2017 at 7-8 in the evening, the appellants attacked and assaulted the deceased Sagar Tiwari. The appellants pushed the deceased on a wall and he was mercilessly beaten. Appellant Rajesh Kumar hit the deceased with kicks and fists on his chest and stomach. The deceased was complaining of stomach pain and difficulty in breathing. 30. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the cause of death of deceased Sagar Tiwari is the injuries which he sustained on 28.05.2017? 31. Appellant Rajesh Kumar hit the deceased with kicks and fists on his chest and stomach. The deceased was complaining of stomach pain and difficulty in breathing. 30. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the cause of death of deceased Sagar Tiwari is the injuries which he sustained on 28.05.2017? 31. Much stress has been laid on behalf of the appellants on Ex.A3 and the statement of PW-4 Dr. Rahul Sharma with regard to the assault. It is true that when the deceased was taken to hospital on 07.06.2017, Ex.A3 was prepared by PW-4 Dr. Rahul Sharma. It records that the diagnosis was assault (4-5 days’ back). PW-4 Dr. Rahul Sharma has stated that the deceased Sagar Tiwari himself had told that he was assaulted 4-5 days prior to the date of his admission. Based on it, it is argued that the assault, which caused injuries to deceased Sagar Tiwari might have been caused on 2nd or 3rd June, 2017, it may not relate to 28.05.2017, because it was 10 days prior to the date of admission of deceased Sagar Tiwari. 32. The context has to be seen. The deceased Sagar Tiwari was staying with his mother. He was under treatment also. His mental condition was not well. He was under depression. It is so proved by PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari. In her cross-examination, PW-1 Kamla Tiwari has stated that Sagar Tiwari had taken medication till May and June, 2016. He was thereafter more or less fine. He was assaulted on 28.05.2017 by the appellants. Kicks and fists blow were given on his chest and stomach. He complained of pain in the stomach and difficulty in breathing. When his condition started deteriorating, he was taken to the hospital. Now, if at the time of admission, deceased Sagar Tiwari had told that he was attacked 4-5 days back, these 4-5 days could not be counted with mathematical precision. Deceased Sagar Tiwari did not give any date. He was in pain. His condition was deteriorating. Therefore, based on Ex.A3, the documents prepared in the hospital by PW-4 Dr. Rahul Sharma, it cannot be said that injuries which caused pain and heavy breathing to the deceased Sagar Tiwari are not related to the incident of 28.05.2017. 33. It is true that in the post-mortem report, no external injuries like blueness, redness etc. is recorded. PW-7 Dr. Therefore, based on Ex.A3, the documents prepared in the hospital by PW-4 Dr. Rahul Sharma, it cannot be said that injuries which caused pain and heavy breathing to the deceased Sagar Tiwari are not related to the incident of 28.05.2017. 33. It is true that in the post-mortem report, no external injuries like blueness, redness etc. is recorded. PW-7 Dr. N.S. Tomar conducted the post-mortem. He concluded that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem chest injuries. 34. At this stage itself, it may be noted that had the statement of deceased been recorded by the IO, it would have been of some more help to adjudicate the matter. The IO could not do it. PW-9 Anil Kumar Binjola has stated that he had visited hospital on 14.06.2017 and again on 19.06.2017 to record the statement of the deceased Sagar Tiwari. On 14.06.2017, the nurse told him that the deceased was unconscious and was on oxygen and on 19.06.2017, PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana denied permission to take the statement of deceased on the ground that his condition is not good. It is also true that PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana in her cross-examination, has stated that the deceased was on ventilator from 17.06.2017, therefore, he was able to give statement till 18.06.2017. At one stage, PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana has also stated that the deceased Sagar Tiwari was in a condition to speak till 19.06.2017. PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana has not stated that till 19.06.2017 all the time the deceased was able to give statement; she has not stated that the deceased had never been on oxygen. Therefore, based on the statement of PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana, it cannot be concluded that the statement of PW-9 Anil Kumar Binjola, the I.O. is not reliable when he said that on 14.06.2017, he was denied to take the statement of deceased Sagar Tiwari on the ground that he was unconscious and on oxygen. 35. The diagnosis was assault ‘chest trauma’ right lung contusion. What is lung contusion? Modi in its Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Twenty - Second Edition (Student Edition) has described lung contusion as hereunder: “Contusions or lacerations of the lungs may be produced by blows from a blunt weapon or by compression of the chest even without fracturing the ribs or showing marks of external injury. What is lung contusion? Modi in its Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Twenty - Second Edition (Student Edition) has described lung contusion as hereunder: “Contusions or lacerations of the lungs may be produced by blows from a blunt weapon or by compression of the chest even without fracturing the ribs or showing marks of external injury. They may be caused by a severe grinding force of a car wheel running over the chest of a young person. These may cause instantaneous death or may result in pleurisy, traumatic pneumonia, haemothorax, or air embolism. Pneumothorax or haemopneumothorax may occur due to a rupture of the pleura of the lung. A bullae may burst following slight trauma and cause pneumothorax. A spontaneous pneumothorax can result due to spontaneous rupture of the emphysematous bullae of the lung. The effect of a high explosive blast, which acts quickly and severely as an external trauma shows evidence of congestion, haemorrhage and subpleaural bullae in the lungs.” 36. Carl Hauser, Noelle Salliant, and Davit H. Livingston have opined about pulmonary contusion and flail chest (in “Current Therapy of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care” 2nd Edition ELSEVIER-Page 245) as hereunder: “Pulmonary contusion and flail chest are the two most common anatomic complications of major blunt chest trauma. Each will directly alter pulmonary physiology in a specific and unique fashion, and thus contribute to pulmonary dysfunction and failure after trauma. Pulmonary contusion was probably first described by Morgagni in the 18th century, but Laurent’s description in The Lancet in 1383 appears to be the first to recognize the possibility that plasticity of the chest wall, most notably in the young, can allow injury to the underlying lungs without disruption of the bony thorax.” 37. PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana has categorically stated that the symptoms of lung contusion emerges in 3-4 days. That lung contusion may be caused without disruption of the bony thorax. If there is no external injury on the body of the deceased Sagar Tiwari, it cannot be said that lung contusion cannot be caused by the kind of attack which was made by the appellants on 28.05.2017. After 28.05.2017, the symptoms emerged. Deceased Sagar Tiwari was attending his duties. It is only when his condition deteriorated, according to PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari, he was taken to hospital on 07.06.2017. On that date, he was critical. He had complain of pain on her chest and abdomen. After 28.05.2017, the symptoms emerged. Deceased Sagar Tiwari was attending his duties. It is only when his condition deteriorated, according to PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari, he was taken to hospital on 07.06.2017. On that date, he was critical. He had complain of pain on her chest and abdomen. He was immediately admitted, lung contusion was diagnosed. Medical procedures were also done on him. Unfortunately, he did not survive. 38. Statements of PW-3 Dr. Rahul Sharma, PW-7 Dr. N.S. Tomar and PW-11 Dr. Madhulita Rana support the prosecution case. It is the case of lung contusion. It may occur with the blows of kicks and fists on the chest and abdomen. It is the prosecution case, as proved by PW-1 Smt. Kamla Tiwari, PW-2 Gita and PW-3. Smt. Sarojni Kainthura that on 28.05.2017, while pushing the deceased Sagar Tiwari on a wall, he was mercilessly beaten by the appellants. 39. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, in fact, the death of the deceased took place due to the injuries which he sustained on 28.05.2017. The prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Sections 304 and 323 IPC against the appellants. The court below did not commit any error in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under Sections 323 and 304 IPC. The impugned judgments and orders are in accordance with the law. No interference is warranted in this matter. Accordingly, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 40. Both the appeals are dismissed.