JUDGMENT : K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. A1 to A3 in S.C.No.75/2014 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District, Parvathipuram, are the appellants herein. The appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge on the following four charges: 1st Charge U/sec. 352 r/w 34 IPC against A-1 to A-3 – found not guilty – acquitted 2nd Charge U/sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC against A-1 to A-3 - found guilty - sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year each 3rd Charge U/sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC – against A-1 to A.3 – Found guilty sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- each i/d simple imprisonment for 3 months each, and 4th Charge U/Sec. 354 IPC – Against A-1 - Acquitted 2. The sum and substance of the charges, as against the accused, is that on 05.02.2007 at about 10.30 P.M., at the house of the deceased, all the accused pushed the deceased with force, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the cement road and became unconscious. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) The deceased was resident of Bobbili. All the material prosecution witnesses and the accused are also residents of Bobbili. (b) PW.1 is the grandson of the deceased, PW.2 is the wife of PW.1, and PW.3 is the sister of PW.1. PW.4 is the wife of deceased, PW.5 is son of the deceased and father of PW.1. PW.6 is another son of the deceased. (c) Two to three months prior to the incident, A1 was roaming around PW.2 and he used to tease PW.2. But, said fact has not been informed by PW.2 to anybody. On the date of incident, i.e., 05.02.2007 at about 7.00 P.M., when PWs 2 and 3 were returning to the house of PW.1, A.1 way laid them on the road and questioned PW.2 for not responding to him and further he pulled the vail of her sari. On coming to know of the alleged incident, PW.1 went to the house of A.1 and enquired him about the incident. The quarrel ensued between PW.1 and A.1 in this regard. It is alleged that A.1 to A.3 along with three others gathered and quarreled with PW.1. The neighbours of PW.1 advised him to lodge a report in the police station. The quarrel ensued between PW.1 and A.1 in this regard. It is alleged that A.1 to A.3 along with three others gathered and quarreled with PW.1. The neighbours of PW.1 advised him to lodge a report in the police station. When PWs.1 to 3 were going to police station to lodge a report, A.1 to A.3 along with three others went to the house of PW.1 and pelted stones on their house. Immediately, PWs. 1 to 3 returned and went to the house of the deceased. At that point of time, the deceased was taking food in his house. PW.5 and another were standing outside the house. When they were narrating the incident to PW.5 and another, A.1 to A.3 along with three others had threatened PW.1 and beat him. Then, the deceased had come out of the house and pacified A.1 to A.3 and three others, PW.1 & another. It is alleged that A.1 to A.3 and three other juveniles had pushed the deceased forcibly on the cement road. The deceased fell down and became unconscious. In the meanwhile, A.1 to A.3 and three other juveniles fled away from the scene of offence. Then, PW.1 was taking the injured to hospital in a rickshaw, he died on the way. (d) On 06.02.2007, at about 11.00 A.M., PW.13 Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili received a written report from PW.1. Basing on it, a case has been registered in Cr.No.10/2007 for the offence under Sections 354, 302 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P6 is the original F.I.R. (e) On receiving express F.I.R. from Bobbili police station, PW.14 Inspector of Police, Bobbili, along with PW.13 rushed to the scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators PWs 10 and 12, and examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. PW.14 prepared Ex.P7 - rough sketch of the scene of offence. Thereafter, PW.14 examined PWs 1 to 7 and recorded their statements. On the same day, PW.14 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 01.00 P.M. to 03.00 P.M. under Ex.P3 - inquest report. (f) PW.11, Civil Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Bobbili, on requisition, conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.4 is the Postmortem Certificate. According to the Doctor, the cause of the death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage. (g) On 07.02.2007, PW.14 Inspector of Police took up further investigation. (f) PW.11, Civil Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Bobbili, on requisition, conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.4 is the Postmortem Certificate. According to the Doctor, the cause of the death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage. (g) On 07.02.2007, PW.14 Inspector of Police took up further investigation. When PW.14 was present in the office, A1 to A3 voluntarily surrendered before him at 4.00 P.M. PW.14 produced the three other juveniles i.e., Chintapu Srinu, Kondru Santhosh Kumar and Kondru Ramu before the Juvenile Justice Board, Vizianagaram. On receipt of all the relevant documents, PW.14 filed charge sheet. (h) PW.15 Inspector of Police, on receiving birth certificates of the three juveniles, who are involved in the case, he filed charge sheet as against them. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and marked exhibits P1 to P8. On behalf of the prosecution, MOs 1 to 3 were seized. 5. Heard Smt. A.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that even accepting the entire prosecution case, an offence under section 302 IPC would not make out as against the appellants herein. According to her, the deceased is an old man aged 75 years, and the only accusation that has been made against the accused is that they are alleged to have pushed the deceased and by virtue of it, the deceased fell on the cement road and he died. According to her, even accepting the said accusation, the accusation would come within the purview of Section 323 IPC. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Court. According to him, the accused used much force in pushing the deceased and by virtue of the same, the deceased fell on the ground and died. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 8. According to him, the accused used much force in pushing the deceased and by virtue of the same, the deceased fell on the ground and died. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 8. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record, it goes to show that all the prosecution witnesses PWs 1 to 7 have in one voice stated that a quarrel ensued between the accused and prosecution witnesses in connection with the incident that happened at about 07.00 P.M. on 05.02.2007, wherein A.1 had pulled the vail of the sari of PW.2 and questioned her for how many days he has to wait for her and so saying he tried to outrage the modesty of PW.2. On coming to know about the alleged incident, PW.1 went to the road and enquired A.1 about the said incident. In connection with that, a quarrel ensued between A.1 and PW.1. In the meanwhile, the friends of A.1 i.e., A2 & A.3 and three other juveniles gathered at the scene of offence. It is alleged that all the accused beat PW.1. The neighbours of PW.1 suggested them to file a complaint before the police station. Accordingly, when PWs 1 to 3 were going to Police Station to lodge a report, they were informed that A1 to A3 and others were pelting stones on the house of PW1. On that, they returned to house and started narrating about the incident to the deceased (who is grandfather of PW.1) and PW5 (father of PW.1). At that time, A1 to A3 and others gathered at the house of PW.1 and beat PW.1. At that time, the deceased was taking food in the house. On coming to know of the same, the deceased came out and tried to pacify the accused and PW.1. In the said scuffle, all the accused pushed the deceased forcibly on cement road and by virtue of the same, the deceased fell on the cement road and died. Accepting the said evidence as it is, the offence would not come within the purview of Section 302 IPC, for the reason that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. Accepting the said evidence as it is, the offence would not come within the purview of Section 302 IPC, for the reason that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. In the scuffle ensued between the prosecution witnesses and the accused, when the deceased intervened, the accused pushed the deceased. The deceased was aged about 80 years. By the act of the accused, the deceased fell on the cement road and he sustained injuries. The accused ran away from the scene of offence. When PWs 1 and 2 were taking deceased to the hospital, on the way, the deceased died. In such event, the act committed by the accused would not in any way come within the purview of either under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC for the reason that there is no knowledge on the part of the accused that the deceased would fall on the ground and he would die, since the act committed by the accused is only to the extent of pushing the deceased, when he interfered to pacify the quarrel between the accused and prosecution witnesses. PW.11, the Civil Surgeon, who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the injury is possible if anybody falls down, due to pushing forcibly, or beating forcibly, or falling on hard surface. The hemorrhage is caused due to that injury. 9. Going by the evidence of prosecution witnesses, A1 to A3 are alleged to have forcibly pushed the deceased and by virtue of the act committed by the accused, the deceased fell on the ground and received the following injuries: External Injuries: (i) A contusion of about 8 x 8 cm bluish red in colour irregular in shape present on left tempero parietal area. (ii) An abrasion with contusion of about 2 x 3 cm present on the left knee, bluish red in colour with clotted blood present on the injury site with irregular margins present. Internal examination: Skull: 1. After opening the skull there is about 30ml of dark blood collected between the Skull bone and scalp tissues on left temperoparietal area. 2. There is irregular fracture of left tempero-parietal bone present. 3. About 30 to 40 ml blood collected extradurally on left tempero-parietal area. Internal examination: Skull: 1. After opening the skull there is about 30ml of dark blood collected between the Skull bone and scalp tissues on left temperoparietal area. 2. There is irregular fracture of left tempero-parietal bone present. 3. About 30 to 40 ml blood collected extradurally on left tempero-parietal area. At the cost of repetition, the deceased was aged around 80 years and the bones of the deceased would be brittle at that age. When he falls on the ground, there is a possibility of causing hemorrhage because of the injuries received by him. Since the act committed by the accused is only to the extent of pushing the deceased, this Court comes to the conclusion that in any way the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC would not be made out as against the accused. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed as under: (i) The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC recorded as against the accused, in S.C.No.75/2014 imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District, Parvathipuram, by judgment dt. 02.12.2016, are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. However, they are convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Since the accused have already undergone the imprisonment of more than five years, the period already undergone by the appellants shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. (ii) The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC are confirmed. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. (iii) As the appellants were already enlarged on bail by order of this Court dt. 29.12.2021 in terms of the order of a Division Bench of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P., 2016(3)ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.), they are directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam for completion of necessary formalities. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.