Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. – All these appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the same judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 12.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2015, and, accordingly, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: – Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 310 of 2017 Convicted under Sections Sentence Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) In default of fine Kari Paswan 302 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for Life 5,000.00 Three month’s imprisonment 148 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for one Year – – 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code S.I. for one month – – 325 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years 500/- S.I. for one month 307 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 1,000/- Two month’s imprisonment 326 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 1,000/- Two month’s imprisonment Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 222 of 2017 Anita Devi (Appellant No.1) 148 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year – – 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code S.I. for one month – – 325 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years 500/- S.I. for one month 307 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 1,000/- Two month’s imprisonment 326 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 1,000/- Two month’s imprisonment Balaram Paswan(Appellant No.2) 148 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year – – 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code S.I. for one month – – 325 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years 500/- S.I. for one month 307 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 1,000/- Two month’s imprisonment 326 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 1,000/- Two month’s imprisonment Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 273 of 2017 Ram Kalyan Paswan 302 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for Life 5,000.00 Three month’s imprisonment 148 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year – – 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code S.I. for one month – – 325 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three Years 500/- S.I. for one month 307 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 1,000/- Two month’s imprisonment 326 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 1,000/- Two month’s imprisonment All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Since the appellants remained unrepresented when these appeals were called for final hearing, this Court appointed Mr. Amish Kumar, a learned advocate as an amicus curiae to assist this Court and present the case of the appellants before us. 4. We have, accordingly, heard Mr. Amish Kumar, learned amicus curiae for the appellants in all the three appeals and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 2017, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 222 of 2017 and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 273 of 2017; for the State. 5. Fard-beyan of Sonia Devi (PW 5), recorded by Brajesh Kumar Singh (PW 6), Station House Officer, Dandari Police Station in the district of Begusarai on 14.08.2014 at 9:30 P.M. near the house of the informant, is the basis for registration of the FIR. She alleged in her fard-beyan that at about 7 P.M. on 14.08.2014, when she and her family members were sitting together, her neighbour Kari Paswan (an appellant in Cr. App. (DB) No. 310 of 2017), his wife Anita Devi (appellant no. 1 in Cr. App. (DB) No. 222 of 2017) started abusing them, which was objected to by the informant’s father-in-law, Chandradeo Paswan. Thereafter, the appellant Kari Paswan said to have gone back to his house and returned armed with bhala (a sharp pointed weapon) and called his brother and nephews, responding to which, his sons Ram Kalyan Paswan (appellant in Cr. App. (DB) No. 273 of 2017) and Lalu Paswan came armed with lathi. Balaram Paswan (appellant No. 2 in Cr. App. (DB) No. 222 of 2017) came armed with sword. App. (DB) No. 273 of 2017) and Lalu Paswan came armed with lathi. Balaram Paswan (appellant No. 2 in Cr. App. (DB) No. 222 of 2017) came armed with sword. Bhelu Paswan, full brother of Balaram Paswan, came with a gupti (a heavy sharp cutting weapon) and Ram Sagun Paswan, Dayaram Paswan, Bijli Paswan, Ram Manoj Paswan, all sons of the appellant Balaram Paswan, Anita Devi and one Ram Dhani Paswan came armed with lathis. They surrounded all of them and with an intention to kill them, they started assaulting with bhala, sword, gupti. Kari Paswan gave a bhala blow in the head of the informant’s father-in-law Chandradeo Paswan (the deceased) and Ram Kalyan Paswan gave a lathi blow on the person of the deceased, because of which he fell down. Balaram Paswan assaulted the informant’s husband Bal Krishna Paswan in his head, because of which he sustained grievous injury. When the informant and her mother-in-law Bulbul Devi (PW 3) attempted to intervene, all the accused persons assaulted them also with lathi, danda because of which they sustained injuries. The informant’s son Ramesh Kumar (PW 2) also sustained injury in the said occurrence. The persons in the neighborhood, after having heard the noise, assembled there and attempted to take the injured persons to hospital for treatment, but, in the meanwhile, her father-in-law Chandradeo Paswan died and her husband became unconscious. Dispute between the two families for last 3-4 years relating to a gairmajarua land was the reason behind the occurrence, according to the informant. From the records, it transpires that the dead-body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem examination, which commenced at 12:25 p.m. on 15.08.2014. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, noticed following antemortem injuries and opined cause of death as under: – “Chandradeo Paswan, M/65 and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person. External- (1) Bruise of size 5”x1½”x1/2”(R) Upper back 1½” lateral to (2) lacerated wound of size 2”x3/4”x bone deep over mid parietal region of scalp (3) bruise over lower 1/3rd(R) of am about 3”x1½”x3/4” (4) lacerated wound of size 2”x1/2”x bone deep over left of parietal region of scalp with fracture of bone(parietal) (5) fracture of Ribs (R) Internal- on dissection brain- Brain matter lacerated with blood clot Heart- (L) Chamber empty (R) Chamber full of blood. Both lungs found pale. Liver, spleen and both kidneys found pale. Both lungs found pale. Liver, spleen and both kidneys found pale. Bladder- stomach- empty Time elapsed Since death- From 8 to 24 hrs. Cause of death- In my opinion, death was done due to above-mentioned injuries- hemorrhagic and neurogenic shock as a result of injury sustained by hard and blunt substance. (head injury) The dead body along its belongings were handed over to the accompanying police personnel.” 6. The persons, who had sustained injuries in the occurrence, namely, Bulbul Devi, Sonia Devi, Bal Krishna Paswan and Ramesh Kumar were examined by Dr. Chakraborty Chaudhary (PW 7), who found following injuries on the bodies of the injured persons. “1. Bulbul Devi – aged 60 years wife of Late Chandra Deo Paswan, Resident of Vill- Sughran, P.S.-Dandari, District-Begusarai with M.IBlack wart below right eye and found following injury- (i) Painful swelling of size 2 1/2"x2"x1/3" at upper 1/3rd of left thigh (ii) Painful left jaw of size 1 12" x 1" substance hard blunt Nature of injury No-I kept reserved rest of injury simple. Duration - 2 to 4 hours Supplementary report of Bulbul Devi advised 'X' Ray left thigh ap and lateral 'X' Ray done at Sadar Hospital on 16-08-2014 by plot No-833 XRay shows fracture of Neck of left Femer. Injury No. 1 is grievous in nature. Both injury report is in my writing and signature. It is marked ext-5 & 5/A respectively. 2. Sonia Devi – aged 32 years w/o Bal Krishna Paswan,Vill-Sughran, P.S.-Dandari, District-Begusarai with M.I. I- old wound scar at right cheek and found compound fracture at right arm. 'X' Ray right arm. Substance Hard Blunt Nature kept reserved for 'X' Ray report. Duration- 2 to 4 hours. Supplementary opinion of Sonia Devi advised 'X' Ray Right arm AP and lateral 'X' Ray done at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai on 16-8-14 by plat no. 834. 'X' Ray shows fracture of mid shaft of right side humorous. Hence injury no. 1 is grievous in nature caused by H.B.S. 3. Duration- 2 to 4 hours. Supplementary opinion of Sonia Devi advised 'X' Ray Right arm AP and lateral 'X' Ray done at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai on 16-8-14 by plat no. 834. 'X' Ray shows fracture of mid shaft of right side humorous. Hence injury no. 1 is grievous in nature caused by H.B.S. 3. Bal Krishna Paswan – aged 35 years, H.M. S/o late Chandra Deo Paswan, Vill- Sughran, P.S. Dandari, Dist-Beguasarai with M.I.- Black Mole at the tip of nose and found following injury- (i) 3 lacerated wound at upper skull- A- 4"x1/2"x into up to bone B- 2"x1/2" up to bone C- 2"x1/2"x up to bone Supplementary opinion of Balkrishna Paswan advised 'X' Ray skull AP & lateral advised CT Scan of brain. 'X' Ray done at S.H. Begusarai on 16-2-15 by plat no. -149 shows no bony injury. CT Scan of brain was done at PMCH, Patna on 15-8-14 but report is not clear in plat available by PMCH, Patna. Hence on the basis of clinical 'X' Ray report Skull AP lateral which shows no bony region. Plat- 149 dated 16-2-15, Hence injury no. 1 is simple including all injuries. In origin I.R.- contagious lacerated wound of size 3/4"x1/2"x skin cut at left ring finger. Duration 2 to 4 hours. Both injury report is in my pen and writing. It is marked as ext-7 and 7/A respectively. 4. Ramesh Kumar – 13 years S/o Balkrishna Paswan, Vill- Sughran, P.S. Dandari, Dist- Begusarai with M.I. black Til on right side chick and found (1) Painful swelling of size 2”x1/2” at left parietal region. (2) Painful right hip joint substance H.B.S. Nature- Simple Duration- 2 to 4 hours” 7. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 12.11.2014 against eight accused persons, who were named in the FIR, for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 17.01.2015. By an order dated 16.07.2015, charges were framed against the accused persons for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 341,323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. By an order dated 16.07.2015, charges were framed against the accused persons for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 341,323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It appears from the records that four, out of the eight accused persons, namely, Bhelu Paswan, Bijli Paswan, Ram Manoj Paswan and Ram Sagun Paswan, absented themselves from trial, and accordingly, their trial was separated and these appellants faced the trial. 8. At the trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses including the four injured witnesses, namely, Bal Krishna Paswan (PW 1), Ramesh Kumar (PW 2), Bulbul Devi (PW 3) and Sonia Devi (PW 5). Ram Krishna Paswan (son of the deceased) deposed as PW-4. The doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination, deposed as PW-8, whereas the doctor, who had examined the injured persons, deposed as PW-7 at the trial. Apart from the oral evidence of the witnesses, as noted above, the prosecution also brought on record documentary evidence, as under, in support of the charge: Exhibit-1 First Information Report (fardbeyan) Exhibit-1/A Signature of the witnesse on fardbeyan Exhibit-1/B Endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge, Dandari on the fardbeyan Exhibit-2 Formal FIR Exhibit-3 Inquest Report Exhibit-5,5/A Injury report(Bulbul Devi) Exhibit-6,6/A Injury report (Sonia Devi) Exhibit-7,7/A Injury report (Bal Krishna Paswan) Exhibit-8 Injury report (Ramesh Kumar) Exhibit-9 Post mortem report 9. After closure of the prosecution’s evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC so as to give them an opportunity to explain the circumstances emerging against them based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial. The appellants, however, denied the circumstances. We deem it proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case to reproduce the questions, which were put by the learned trial court under Section 313 of the CrPC to these appellants. The appellants, however, denied the circumstances. We deem it proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case to reproduce the questions, which were put by the learned trial court under Section 313 of the CrPC to these appellants. dkjh ikloku mQZ jke'ks[kj ikloku iz'u % xokgksa dh xokgh lquh gS\ mÙkj % th gk¡A iz'u % xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vki fnukad 14-8-14 dh laè;k 7 cts esa xzke&lqèkju] Fkkuk&MaMkjh] ftyk&csxwljk esa lkekU; vk'k; ls vxzlj gksdj vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk tkuysok gfFk;kj ykBh] Hkkyk] ryokj] xqIrh ls lqlfTtr gksdj fofèk fo:) teko ds lnL; Fks vkSj oyok dj lwpdk lksfu;k nsoh ds ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa dks ?ksj dj tku ekjus dh fu;r ls ekjihV dj t[eh dj fn;k] ftlesa lksfu;k nsoh] ckyÑ".k ikloku] jes'k dqekj ,oa cqycqy nsoh xEHkhj :i ls t[eh gq,\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % xokgksa dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd mijksDr ?kVukLFky o le; dks vki vius gkFk esa fy;s Hkkyk ls lwpdk ds llqj pUnznso ikloku ds ekFkk ij izgkj dj mldh gR;k dj fn;k\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mÙkj % funksZ"k gw¡A ckykjke ikloku iz'u % xokgksa dh xokgh lquk gS\ mÙkj % th gk¡A iz'u % xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vki fnukad 14-8-14 dh laè;k 7 cts esa xzke&lq?kju] Fkkuk& MaMkjh] ftyk&csxwljk esa lkekU; vk'k; ls vxzlj gksdj vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk tkuysok gfFk;kj ykBh] Hkkyk] ryokj] xqIrh ls lqlfTtr gksdj fofèk&fo:) teko dk lnL; gksrs gq, oyok dj lwpdk lksfu;k nsoh ds ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa dks ?ksj dj tku ekjus dh fu;r ls ekjihV dj t[eh dj fn;k] ftlesa lwpdk ds llqj pUnznso ikloku dh gR;k gqbZ] ,oa vU; lksfu;k nsoh] cqycqy nsoh] ckyÑ".k ikloku ,oa jes'k dqekj xaHkhj :i ls t[eh gq;s\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % xokgksa dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd vki mijksDr ?kVukLFky] frfFk o le; dks lwpdk ds ifr ckyÑ".k ikloku dks ryokj ls tku ekjus dh fu;r ls lj ij izgkj dj mls xaHkhj :i ls t[eh dj fn;k\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mÙkj % funksZ"k gw¡A vfurk nsoh iz'u % xokgksa dh xokgh lquh gS\ mÙkj % th gk¡A iz'u % xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vki fnukad 14-8-14 dks laè;k 7 cts xzke&lq?kju] Fkkuk&MaMkjh] ftyk& csxwljk; esa lkekU; vk'k; ls vxzlj gksdj vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk tkuysok gfFk;kj ykBh] Hkkyk] ryokj vkSj xqIrh ls lqlfTtr gksdj fofèk fo:) teko ds lnL; Fks vkSj oyok dj lwpdk lksfu;k nsoh ds ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa dks ?ksj dj tku ekjus dh fu;r ls ekjihV fd;k] ftlesa pUnznso ikloku dh gR;k gqbZ ,oa vU; lksfu;k nsoh] cqycqy nsoh] ckyÑ".k ikloku ,oa jes'k dqekj xEHkhj :i ls t[eh gq,\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % xokgksa dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd vki ykBh ls lwpdk lksfu;k nsoh] cqycqy nsoh] jes'k dqekj ,oa ckyÑ".k dks ykBh ls izgkj dj xEHkhj :i ls t[eh dj fn;k\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mÙkj % funksZ"k gw¡A jkedY;k.k ikloku iz'u % xokgksa dh xokgh lquh gS\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vki fnukad 14-8-14 dh la[;k 7 cts esa xzke&lq?kju] Fkkuk&MaMkjh] ftyk&csxwljk esa lkekU; vk'k; ls vxzlj gksdj vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk tkuysok gfFk;kj ykBh] Hkkyk] ryokj vkSj xqIrh ls lqlfTtr gksdj fofèk fo:) teko ds lnL; Fks] vkSj oyok dj lwpdk lksfu;k nsoh ds ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa dks ?ksjdj tku ekjus dh fu;r ls ekjihV dj t[eh dj fn;k] ftlesa lksfu;k nsoh] ckyÑ".k ikloku] jes'k dqekj ,oa cqycqy nsoh xEHkhj :i ls t[eh gq,\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % xokgksa dk ;g Hkh dguk fd mijksDr ?kVukLFky] frfFk o le; dks vki lwpdk ds llqj pUnznso ikloku dks ykBh ls izgkj dj mldh gR;k dj fn;k\ mÙkj % th ughaA iz'u % lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mÙkj % funksZ"k gw¡A 10. The trial court, after having examined the oral evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and documentary evidence adduced at the trial, has held all the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 325, 326, 341 read with Section 149 of the IPC. As regards the appellants Kari Paswan and Ram Kalyan Paswan, the trial court concluded that the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code stood proved against them. The trial court, however, did not record any finding on the charges of commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 324 of the IPC keeping in mind the fact that the appellants were held guilty of graver charges. After having convicted the appellants, the trial court imposed punishment of imprisonment and fine, as has been noted above by the impugned order of sentence dated 12.01.2017. 11. Mr. Amish Kumar, learned amicus curiae representing the case of the appellants before this Court, has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution, as developed in the fardbeyan, stands falsified by the postmortem report. He contends that though there is specific accusation against the appellant Kari Paswan of having given the deceased bhala blow, but in the postmortem examination, according to the doctor, the antemortem injury, which was the cause of death of the deceased, was caused by hard and blunt substance. He accordingly submits that the accusation against the appellant Kari Paswan of having assaulted the deceased with bhala cannot be accepted. He has further submitted that though there is oral evidence against Balaram Paswan of having assaulted the son of the deceased Bal Krishna Paswan (PW 1) with sword, causing injury at three places in his head, no incised wound caused by sharp cutting weapon has been found and, rather a lacerated wound has been found during the medical examination on the head of PW 1. The accusation against Balaram Paswan of having assaulted PW 1 with a sword is, thus, not substantiated and corroborated by medical evidence. He has further submitted that evidence against appellant Anita Devi of having assaulted the injured person is of general nature and, in fact, her participation in the commission of the occurrence is doubtful and there is considerable chance of her false implication because of family dispute. He has further submitted that evidence against appellant Anita Devi of having assaulted the injured person is of general nature and, in fact, her participation in the commission of the occurrence is doubtful and there is considerable chance of her false implication because of family dispute. He has also argued that though the occurrence is said to have taken place in the evening at 7 P.M., the source of identification has neither been mentioned in the FIR nor there is any evidence adduced at the trial by either of the witnesses as to whether there was any source of light sufficient to identify distinctly the accused persons and these appellants, with respective roles in the commission of the crime. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutors, representing the State, on the other hand, have submitted that the injured witnesses have fully supported the prosecution’s case. They contended that the injury sustained by the injured witnesses have been fully proved by the witnesses at the trial. Their evidence, they contended, cannot be discarded. They have argued that considering the circumstance in which the occurrence had taken place, it is evident that all the persons put on trial had actively and jointly participated in the commission of offence. The finding of conviction recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality requiring this court’s interference, they contend. 13. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and we have carefully scrutinized the evidence adduced at the trial to prove the charges against these appellants. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we proceed to consider the challenge to the impugned judgment of conviction, referring first to the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC. The first question, which was put to the appellants facing trial, as to whether they had heard the evidence of the witnesses to which they answered in affirmative. The second question was common to all the appellants as can be seen from what has been quoted hereinabove. Kari Paswan, an appellant, was informed by the trial court that the prosecution’s witnesses had deposed at the trial that he had assaulted the informant’s father-in-law (the deceased) with bhala on his head and thus killed him. The second question was common to all the appellants as can be seen from what has been quoted hereinabove. Kari Paswan, an appellant, was informed by the trial court that the prosecution’s witnesses had deposed at the trial that he had assaulted the informant’s father-in-law (the deceased) with bhala on his head and thus killed him. It is not at all in dispute that no incised wound, which could have been caused by bhala, which is a pointed weapon, has been found in the postmortem report on the dead body of the deceased. The question no. 3 put to the appellant Balaram Paswan was to the effect that he had assaulted the son of the deceased Bal Krishna Paswan with sword. It has been argued that Bal Krishna Paswan did not sustain any injury, which could have been caused by sword. Anita Devi was told by the trial court that she had assaulted the informant Sonia Devi (PW 5), Bulbul Devi (PW 3), Ramesh Kumar (PW 2) and Bal Krishna Paswan (PW 1) with lathi. The evidence against her of having assaulted all the persons is of general nature. Ram Kalyan Paswan was informed by the court based on the evidence at the trial that he had assaulted the deceased with lathi, leading to his death. It is significant to note that whereas the appellants Anita Devi and Balaram Paswan have been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 148 and Sections 307, 325, 326, 341 read with Section 149 of the IPC; while imposing sentence, the trial court has used Section 149 of the IPC only with the conviction under Section 341 of the IPC. 15. Be that as it may, PW-1, an injured witness, deposed specifically at the trial that the appellant Kari Paswan assaulted the deceased on his head with bhala, and thereafter, appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan assaulted him with lathi on his head. Ramesh Kumar (PW 2), Bulbul Devi (PW 3), Ram Krishna Paswan (PW 4), Sonia Devi (PW 5), all of them have consistently deposed in their oral evidence at the trial that appellant Kari Paswan had given a bhala blow in the head of the deceased. Ramesh Kumar (PW 2), Bulbul Devi (PW 3), Ram Krishna Paswan (PW 4), Sonia Devi (PW 5), all of them have consistently deposed in their oral evidence at the trial that appellant Kari Paswan had given a bhala blow in the head of the deceased. After having perused the postmortem report and the evidence of PW-8, the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination, we are of the considered view that the accusation against the appellant Kari Paswan that he had assaulted the victim with bhala cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The apparent contradiction in oral evidence of assault having been made by bhala and the medical evidence creates reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt, in such circumstance, shall go to the accused. 16. We are, accordingly, of the view that conviction of appellant Kari Paswan of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable. He, accordingly, stands acquitted of the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. 17. We deem it apt to consider the case of the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan later after considering the appeals of the appellant Anita Devi and Balaram Paswan, i.e., Cr. App. (DB) No. 222 of 2017. 18. It would be worthwhile noticing the background in which the occurrence, according to the prosecution, had taken place. It is an admitted position that there was some dispute between the two families in respect of a gairmajarua land, which was going on for last 3-4 years. It is the prosecution’s case that the appellant Kari Paswan was using abusive language, reacting to which the deceased had accosted him. Subsequently, all the family members of Kari Paswan assembled and started assaulting the deceased and his family members. On close reading of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses, it can be safely said that there is no specific evidence of any overt act against the appellant Anita Devi except that she was also there with her family members. As regards, the appellant Balaram Paswan, as has been noted hereinabove, he was carrying a sword, according to the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses, and had assaulted Bal Krishna (PW 1). As regards, the appellant Balaram Paswan, as has been noted hereinabove, he was carrying a sword, according to the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses, and had assaulted Bal Krishna (PW 1). The said evidence of assault made by Balaram Paswan on the head of the Bal Krishna (PW 1) is not supported by the medical evidence as, though injury has been found on the head of Bal Krishna Paswan (PW 1), the same appears to have not been caused by a sharp cutting weapon in the nature of sword. In our view, thus, the conviction of the appellants no. 1 and 2 of Cr. App (DB) No. 222 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 325, 326, 341 read with Section 149 of the IPC cannot be sustained, as the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the charge against them beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly they are acquitted of the said charges. 19. We now come to the question of correctness or otherwise of conviction of the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan of Cr. App. (DB) No. 273 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Before adverting to the evidence adduced at the trial in support of the charge against him, we must necessarily keep in mind the background in which the occurrence, according to the prosecution's case, had taken place. A dispute between the two families regarding the possession over a gairmajarua land was apparently the reason behind the occurrence. The witnesses have deposed that this appellant (Ram Kalyan Paswan), is said to have given a lathi blow in the head of the deceased. The consistent evidence of the prosecution's witnesses of the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan having given lathi blow in the head of the deceased is corroborated by the medical evidence. The question, which arises for this Court to consider in the facts and circumstances of the case, is as to whether the act of appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan can be said to be falling under Section 304 (part II) of the Indian Penal Code. To answer the said question, a moot question would arise as to whether the said blow was given by the appellant Ram Kalyna Paswan with an intention to kill the deceased. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus: – “304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. To answer the said question, a moot question would arise as to whether the said blow was given by the appellant Ram Kalyna Paswan with an intention to kill the deceased. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus: – “304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. – Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” 20. Mr. Amish Kumar, learned amicus curiae, has submitted that there is no clear evidence on record that the appellant had given repeated lathi blow in the head of the deceased. In the any event, the background and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, it cannot be said that the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan had acted with a premeditated mind to kill the deceased by giving him lathi blow in his head. He has brought to our notice a recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered on 20.07.2023 in case of Anbazhagan vs. the State represented by the Inspector of Police (Cr. App. No. 2043 of 2023) which lays down the essential ingredients for an act to fall under Part-II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302 thereof. Paragraph 60 of the said decision reads as under: – “60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus: – (1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus: – (1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate: 'A’ is bound hand and foot. ‘B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of 'A’, shoots 'A’ in his head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of 'B' in shooting 'A' was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A’ while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of ‘A’, 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of 'A’ and runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter. The injury to ‘A’ was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that ‘B' intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of ‘B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused. (2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused’s case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC. (3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention’, whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'. (4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder. (4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder. (5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases: (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the lPC. (6) The word "likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'. when chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death. (7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. (7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC. (8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack. (9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries. (10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. (11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies. (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.” 21. Upon close analysis of the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution, we are of the view that though the injury caused by the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan in the head of the deceased by a lathi blow could be sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause death, we find from evidence that the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan did not have any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. This circumstance, in our opinion, makes the act of the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan fall under Section 304 (part II) of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Accordingly, we modify the conviction of the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan of Cr. App. (DB) No. 273 of 2017 to an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302 thereof as recorded by the trial court. After having modified the conviction of appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan to offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC, we, taking into account the entire conspectus of the matter, deem it appropriate to impose upon the said appellant, punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years without fine. 23. Resultantly, Cr. App. (DB) No. 310 of 2017 and Cr. App. (DB) No. 222 of 2017, are allowed. 24. The appellant of Cr. App.(DB) No. 310 of 2017, namely, Kari Paswan, is under custody. Let him be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other matter. 25. The appellants of Cr. App. (DB) No. 222 of 2017, namely, Anita Devi and Balaram Paswan, are on bail. They stand discharge of all the liabilities of the bail bonds and the sureties, if any. 26. Cr. App. (DB) No. 273 of 2017 stands partly allowed. 27. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2017 and 12.01.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions VIII Begusarai are set aside to the extent they relates to the appellants Kari Paswan, Anita Devi and Balram Paswan. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in case of the appellant Ram Kalyan Paswan stand modified in terms of the present judgment and order. 28. We record our deep appreciation for the able assistance extended by Mr. Amish kumar, learned amicus curiae, who has taken all pains to selflessly assist this Court. For the assistance given by him to this Court, we direct the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee to pay to him a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as a token amount.