Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 805 OF 2009

Litta Singh & Anr.        …       Appellant(s)

versus

State of Rajasthan                          …   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

The  present  appeal  by  special  leave  arises  out  of  the  

judgment  and  order  dated  8th May,  2008  of  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 239  

of 2002 whereby the appeal of the appellants herein was dismissed  

upholding the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2002 of the  

Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2001 whereby  

the  appellants  were  convicted  under  Section  302/34  IPC  and  

sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rupees one thousand  

1

Page 2

each and in default  in payment of  fine to further undergo rigorous  

imprisonment for one month each in addition.    

2.  During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Kalla  

Singh was granted bail by this Court on 3rd February, 2010.

3. The  case  of  the  prosecution in brief is that complainant  

Baltej Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report on 7 th February, 2001  

(Ex.P/1) in the police station Sadulshahar upon which FIR (Ex. P/17)  

was  drawn  and  a  case  under  Section  307,  341,  323/34  was  

registered.  It is alleged in the said report Ex.P/1 that to pass time the  

villagers and complainant and his family members used to sit near  

the fire during the time of winter and cold in front of house of Mukund  

Singh.  Boga Singh, co-accused was not liking sitting of brother of  

complainant Hansraj Singh and, therefore, two days before the date  

of  incident  quarrel  took  place  between  Hansraj  Singh  and  Boga  

Singh.  On 7th February, 2001 at about 7.00 p.m., hearing the voice  

MARO MARO coming from the side of lane in front of the house of  

Mukund Singh, the complainant, Yadvinder Singh, Mukund Singh and  

Gurjant  Singh  ran  towards  the  place  from  where  the  voice  was  

coming.  There they saw that accused Boga Singh and his two sons  

Litta  Singh  and   Kalla   Singh   (appellants  herein)  were  beating  

2

Page 3

Hansraj Singh with lathis and gandasi.  Kalla Singh had gandasi with  

him who inflicted injury by gandasi on the head of Hansraj Singh and  

others  gave  beating  by  lathis.   The  complainant,  Mukund  Singh,  

Yadvinder Singh and Gurjant Singh shouted upon which the accused  

ran away.  The complainant took the victim to the hospital and got  

him  admitted.   He  lodged  report  Ex.  P/1  in  the  police  station  

Sadulshahar at 10.00 p.m. on the basis of  which FIR No. 29/2001  

(Ex.P/17) was registered under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC.  The  

victim died on 8th February, 2001 during treatment in the hospital on  

which  Section  302  IPC was added.  During investigation,  site  was  

inspected on 8th February, 2001 and blood soil and sample soil were  

collected.   All  the three accused were arrested.   The weapons of  

offence  were  also  recovered.   The  seized  articles  were  sent  to  

Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)  for  report.   After  recording the  

statements of the witnesses and obtaining opinion of the FSL (report  

Ex.P/24)  and  post  mortem report  (Ex.P/14),  the  challan  was  filed  

against  the  accused  persons  under  Section  302/34  IPC.   The  

accused denied the charges and sought trial.  In support of its case,  

the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses out of whom  

PW-1 Baljet  Singh, PW-2 Yadvinder Singh and PW-3 Mukund Singh  

3

Page 4

are stated to be eye-witnesses, PW-6 Dr.  B.B. Gupta & PW-7 Dr.  

Manish Ahuja are witnesses regarding treatment of the deceased and  

post mortem report, PW-8 Chandra Prakash Parick as Investigating  

Officer  and  the  other  witnesses  i.e.  PW-4  Sewa  Singh,  PW-5  

Lakharam  &  PW-9  Haranarayan  are  witnesses  to  prove  the  

recovery/seizure of the articles and sending them to the FSL.  Each  

of the accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to them  

and stated that they have been falsely implicated.  The accused Boga  

Singh took further stand that the deceased Hansraj Singh had illicit  

relation with wife of Gurjant Singh and the same being objected by  

him  he  has  been  wrongly  implicated  in  the  case  of  murder.  

However, none of the accused led any evidence in defence.

4. The  following  injuries  were  found  on  the  body  of  the  

deceased on performing post mortem:

1.  Incised  wound  4  cm x  1/5  cm x  bone  deep  was  on  left  forearm.  The bones of lower side were fractured.

2. Incised wound 20 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep was on the right  forearm.

3. Abrasion 5 cm x 1/8 cm on right shoulder.

4. Abrasion 5 cm x 1/8 cm on right shoulder.

5. Abrasion 7 cm x ½ cm was present on the waist.

4

Page 5

6. Abrasion 7 cm x ½ cm was present on the waist.

7.  Cyanosed mark with swelling.   There was 8 cm abrasion  within the injury on left temple which 1 cm x 1 cm on central  part.

8. Cyanosed and swelled 7 cm x 7 cm on right temple 1 cm x 1  cm abrasion was present inside the same injury.  

9.  Cyanosed  and  swelled  6  cm  x  8  cm  clotted  blood  was  present under the skin on cutting back side of head which was  extending from injury No. 7 upto the lower part of injury No. 9.  On cutting the bone blood had coagulated which duramatter  was in the brain which was in the left parietal region, occipital  region and right tempo-parietal region.

10. Cyanosed 10 cm x 1 cm on right knee.

5. According to the doctor (PW-6), all the injuries were ante  

mortem and the deceased died due to shock and coma arising out of  

head injury Nos. 7, 8 and 9.  Injury Nos. 7 and 8 was the cause of  

death in ordinary course of nature.

6. The trial court on the basis of statement of PW-6 made on  

the  basis  of  post  mortem report  (Ex.P/14)  held  that  the  death  of  

deceased Hansraj Singh was homicidal.  As regards credibility of the  

testimony of eye-witnesses (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3), the trial court  

observed (in para 18)  that it may be true that the place where all   

these three witnesses were standing seeing the accused directly from  

5

Page 6

there is not at all possible but their statement is that they heard the  

call  MARO  MARO and  then  they  rushed  there;  there  may  be  

exaggeration in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding seeing  

the  accused  because  both  of  them  are  close  relatives  of  the  

deceased  and  they  have  made  statement  of  seeing  the  accused  

directly that they wanted to give conclusive evidence on this point that  

they saw accused while assaulting from the very beginning but on the  

basis of their statement that they have seen the accused from that  

place where they were standing, on this basis it cannot be agreed  

that they did not hear the call MARO MARO; and since there was a  

call of MARO MARO, therefore all these three witnesses rushed there  

and they saw that the accused were assaulting the deceased Hansraj  

Singh,  cannot  be  disbelieved.   As  regards  discrepancies  and  

shortcomings in the statements, the trial court held (in para 19) that  

on this ground the entire prosecution case cannot be treated untrue  

because  there  is  no  such  case  in  which  such  discrepancies  of  

general nature do not exist and the court has to see that how much  

prosecution evidence is reliable in respect of chief statement of the  

occurrence.   On  the  argument  that  PW-1  and  PW-2  being  close  

relatives of  the deceased their  statements cannot be believed, the  

6

Page 7

trial court did not accept the same observing that their arrival at the  

spot  of  occurrence  was  natural  because  they  made  statement  of  

reaching the place of occurrence on hearing the call of MARO MARO  

and the place of occurrence is not very far from their house.  On the  

argument  that  Gurjant  Singh  being  the  eye-witness  has  not  been  

examined by the prosecution,  the trial  court  held that  it  is  for  the  

prosecution as to which witnesses are to be examined and when the  

same fact is proved through reliable witness then for corroboration of  

it on the same point by getting examined more than one witnesses is  

not required.    

7. Ultimately, the trial court held that the accused Litta Singh  

and Kalla Singh caused fatal injuries to the deceased Hansraj Singh  

by assaulting him with sickle (gandasi) and lathi with the motive of  

causing his death as a result of which he died but the fact of any  

participation of accused Boga Singh in the said offence is not found  

to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, giving benefit  

of  the  doubt  accused  Boga  Singh  was  acquitted.  The  appellants  

herein were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced as  

stated above.

7

Page 8

8. Aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of  the  trial  court,  the  

appellants  preferred  an  appeal  before  the  High  Court.   The  High  

Court after analyzing  the facts of the case and re-appreciating the  

testimonies of the witnesses, affirmed the findings recorded by the  

trial court and  dismissed the appeal.  Hence, this appeal by special  

leave.

9. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellants  

assailed the impugned judgment  and order  of  conviction as being  

contrary to the facts and evidence on record.  Learned counsel firstly  

submitted that  the courts below have erred in placing reliance on the  

statements of the PW-1 Baltej Singh, PW-2 Yadvinder Singh, PW-3  

Mukund Singh, who were ex facie interested witnesses inasmuch as  

PW-1 and PW-2 are brother and son of the deceased and Mukund  

Singh  was  inimical  towards  the  appellants.   Learned  counsel  

submitted that  since the statements of these witnesses had been  

disbelieved qua Boga Singh,  the  High  Court  has  gravely  erred in  

placing reliance on the statements of  these witnesses without any  

corroboration by independent witnesses.  Learned counsel drew our  

attention to the judgment of the trial court and submitted that the High  

Court  ought  to  have  considered  the  findings  recorded by  the  trial  

8

Page 9

court in para 22 of the judgment. Para 22 of the trial court judgment  

reads as under:-

“As far as there is the question of the accused  Boga  Singh  though  statements  are  also  against him similar to PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3  that he also beat the deceased with lathi but  our opinion in this  regard is that PW.1 and  PW.2  have  made  statements  regarding  the  accused Boga Singh that accused Boga Singh  raised  the  call  of  MARO  MARO  but  in  the  statement  under  Section  161  Cr.P.C.  of  all  these  three  there is no such statement that  who  gave  a  call  of  MARO  MARO  was  the  accused Boga Singh.  It is revealed from this  that the statement made by PW.1 and PW.2  regarding giving a call  of  MARO  MARO by  accused  Boga  Singh  has  been  made  for  ensuring  that  accused  Boga  Singh  be  also  fully  included  in  this  case.   PW.3  Mukand  Singh does not  make such statement  in  his  statement  in  the  court  that  accused  Boga  Singh  raised  a  call  of  MARO MARO and it  was natural for him that he only heard the call  did not see the accused because at that time  he was feeding bread to the dogs in front of  his  house.  PW.1 and PW.2 have made this  excess statement in the court regarding Boga  Singh  due  to  which  doubt  is  created  that  whether  in  fact  call  of  MARO  MARO  was  made by Boga Singh only because the place  where these people were standing and in the  time of occurrence it was not possible to see  for them that the call  was given by him.  In  addition to this there was no blood on the lathi  which accused Boga Singh  got recovered on  his information.  Therefore, this also creates  doubt  that  the  lathi  which  was  seized  was  used  in  causing  injuries  to  the  deceased.  

9

Page 10

There is one more practical fact that when his  two young sons in which the age of accused  Kala  Singh  is  20  years  and  accused  Leeta  Singh  is  25  years  old  as  has  been  told  by  them in  their  statements  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C,  and both  have sufficient  capacity  of  causing  injuries  to  the  deceased  then  this  accused was having the necessity that he also  cause injuries to the deceased.  His presence  may be at the spot of occurrence because the  manner in which PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 came  on hearing  MARO MARO then he may  have  also come there but neither he gave a call of  MARO MARO and instigated both his sons in  any  manner  and  nor  he  took  any  part  in  causing injuries to the deceased.  Therefore,  the  statements  of  PW.1,  PW.2  and  PW.3  concerning him cannot be believed and giving  benefit of doubt to him is justified.”

10. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation in the FIR  

made  against   all  the  three  accused  persons  and  the  evidence  

adduced by the prosecution cannot be segregated.  Since one of the  

accused Boga Singh has been acquitted, then there is no reason why  

the  appellants  may  not  be  acquitted  from  the  charges.   Learned  

counsel  further  submitted that  the genesis  of  the incident  has not  

been established as to which injuries were fatal.  Learned counsel  

referred the decisions of this Court in the case of  Ishwar Singh vs.  

State of  U.P.,  (1976)  4 SCC 355 and  State of  U.P. vs.  Madan  

Mohan & Ors.,  AIR 1989 SC 1519.  Learned counsel submitted that  

1 0

Page 11

the non-examination of  Gurjant Singh and the persons of the locality  

is fatal in the instant case as no explanation has been given for their  

non-examination.  Lastly,  learned  counsel  made  an  alternative  

argument and submitted that there was no common intention of the  

appellants to kill the victim.  It may be that because of some dispute  

and quarrel  between the appellants and the victim,  the appellants  

might have tried to teach lesson to the victim and in that they have  

allegedly inflicted injuries which have caused the death of the victim.  

And in  the said  premises,  the conviction of  the appellant  may be  

altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC or at the most  

under Section 304 Part-I IPC.  

11. On the other hand, Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel  

appearing for  the prosecution side submitted that  there  are  direct  

evidence  in  the  form of  eye-witnesses,  namely,  PW-2 and  PW-3.  

Learned counsel submitted that the weapons used by the appellants  

were  recovered  and  blood  found on  the  said  weapons.   Learned  

counsel submitted that the head injuries i.e. injury Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are  

independently  sufficient  to  cause  the  death.   Learned  counsel  

submitted that Gurjant Singh may not be called as best witness but  

one of the witnesses.  Since the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 was  

1 1

Page 12

sufficient to establish the case, non-examination of Gurjant Singh is  

not in any way fatal to the prosecution side.

12. We have carefully examined the evidence adduced by the  

prosecution and also the complaint lodged by the complainant on the  

basis of which the case was registered against the appellant Boga  

Singh  who  has  been  acquitted  in  the  case.   Much  stress  and  

emphasis has been given to the word “MARO MARO” coming from  

the side  of lane in front of the house of Mukund Singh.  Hearing the  

voice, the accused person alleged to have run towards the place and  

saw that the accused Boga Singh and his two sons Litta Singh and  

Kalla Singh were beating the deceased with lathi and gandasi.  In the  

FIR (English translation of the same has been annexed as Annexure  

P-1),  it appears that the informant alleged that when he along with  

two others ran in front of the house of Mukund Singh, a loud voice  

“MARO MARO” was heard. On hearing the turmoil, the complainant  

and PWs 2 and 3 rushed and saw that the accused persons were  

assaulting  the deceased.  When the complainant and PWs 2 and 3  

raised commotion, then the accused persons ran away.  PW-1, who  

is  the  complainant,  in  his  evidence,  has  deposed  otherwise.  

According to his evidence, there was hue and cry, Boga Singh was  

1 2

Page 13

saying “KILL KILL”.   Hearing the hue and cry, he went running there  

and saw that the accused persons were beating the deceased.  PW-2  

Yadvinder Singh in his deposition has said that on hearing the sound  

of  “MARO MARO”   he  saw that  Boga Singh  was saying  “MARO  

MARO”, then they went there and saw that three accused persons  

were  beating  his  father.   When  they  reached  nearby,  then  these  

persons fled away.  PW-3 Mukund Singh has said that the incident  

was of about six months before.  While he was feeding bread to the  

dogs,  then sound of  “MARO MARO”  reached.   He reached there  

running  and  saw that  the  accused  persons  were  beating  Hansraj  

Singh.   

13. The trial court proceeded on the basis of  written report  

(Ex. P/1) submitted in the police station wherein the allegation was  

that  the  deceased  while  coming   home from the  field  at  about  7  

O’clock and when he reached in the lane in front of the house of  

Mukund  Singh  a  loud  voice  “MARO MARO”  was  heard.    In  the  

judgment,  the  word  “MARO MARO”  was  described  as  “MAR DO  

MAR DO”.  The trial court further noticed the evidence of PWs 1, 2  

and 3 who alleged to have heard the noise “MARO MARO”.  The trial  

court recorded its opinion which is quoted hereinbelow:-

1 3

Page 14

“  …… My opinion in this regard is that it may  be  true  the  place  where  all  these  three  witnesses were standing seeing the accused  from there is not at all possible because the  occurrence is about quarter to seven  -  seven  O’clock evening on 7th February 2001 and on  this day sun sets at  almost 6½ O’clock and  the dark after half an hour after sun set is that  much in  which  it  is  not  possible  to  see  the  accused  directly  but  their  statement  is  that  they heard the call  MARO MARO then they  rushed there.  There may be exaggeration in  the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding  seeing the accused because both of them are  close relatives of the deceased and they have  made  statement  of  seeing  the  accused  directly  that  they  wanted  to  give  conclusive  evidence on this point that they saw accused  while assaulting from the very beginning but  on the basis of their statement that they have  seen the accused from that place where they  were  standing,  on  this  basis  it  cannot  be  agreed  that   they  did  not  hear  the  call  of  MARO MARO. The statement of PW.1, PW.2  and PW.3 that they had gone there on hearing  MARO  MARO   and  among   them  the  statement of  PW.1 and PW.2 is  certain that  Banga  Singh  was  giving  a  call  of  MARO  MARO  but  in  it  their  evidence   may  be  doubtful that in fact Bonga Singh made a call  of MARO MARO but since there was a call of  MARO  MARO  therefore  all  these  three  witnesses rushed there and they saw that the  accused  were  assaulting  deceased  Hansraj  Singh.   The  place  of  all  these  witnesses  is  though  not  very  far  from  the  place  of  occurrence hence, their going  to the place of  occurrence  on  hearing  the  sound  of  MARO  MARO  and  having  gone  there  evidence  of  seeing the accused assaulting Hansraj Singh  

1 4

Page 15

cannot be disbelieved.  Though the Advocate  for  the accused have given the argument in  their arguments that the  Investigation Officer  has  not  shown  that  place  wherefrom  they  were seeing  the  accused by  standing  but  it  does not have any adverse effect because it  was  necessary  for  the  Investigation  Officer  that  he  would  show the  spot  of  occurrence  and  the  place  in  the  vicinity  not  that  place  wherefrom  any  witness  may  have  seen  occurrence.   Had  all  the  three  witnesses  would have made the statement of not going  at  the  place  of  occurrence  on  hearing  the  sound of MARO MARO and would have made  the  statement  of  seeing  the  occurrence  standing only at that place then this argument  was having the importance that how they had  seen  the  occurrence  while  standing  at  the  place where they were standing.  When they  reached the place of  occurrence on hearing  the call then the state of their being standing  or place becomes secondary.  Therefore, the  argument given by the learned Advocate for  the accused does not have any force.”

14. However,  with regard  to the accused Boga Singh, the  

trial court recorded the reasoning in para 22 of the judgment while  

acquitting him.

15. Curiously  enough,  the  High  Court  while  narrating  the  

incident  as  contained  in  Ex.  P/1,  has  wrongly  mentioned that  the  

witnesses have heard the voice “KILL KILL” and hearing  the shout,  

1 5

Page 16

the witnesses reached the spot and saw the accused persons beating  

the deceased.

16. The word “MARO MARO”  can never mean “KILL KILL”.  

The word “KILL” means to cause the death of a person or animal. It  

also means to put some one to death, to murder, to slaughter.  On  

the other hand, the word “MARO MARO”  means to beat, to cause  

assault.  Here the thin line of distinction lies between the two words.  

If the voice is “KILL  KILL”, it  means to cause death of the person  

and to finish him.   Had the intention of the person been to make such  

call or voice “KILL KILL”  and on the basis of such call the accused  

persons had assaulted the  deceased, then the intention would have  

been clearly to kill and murder the deceased.  Here on hearing the  

call “MARO MARO”, the accused persons with Boga Singh started  

beating  the deceased.  

17.  Considering  the  nature  of  the  injury  caused  to  the  

deceased and the weapons i.e.  lathi and  gandasi (sickle) used by  

them, it cannot be ruled out that they assaulted the deceased with the  

knowledge that the injury may cause death of the person.  Moreover,  

there is no evidence from the side of the prosecution that the accused  

persons  pre-planned  to  cause  death  and  with  that  intention  they  

1 6

Page 17

were waiting for the deceased coming from the field and then with an  

intention to kill the deceased  they assaulted him.

18. It  is  well  settled proposition of  law that  the intention to  

cause  death  with  the  knowledge  that  the  death  will  probably  be  

caused, is  very important consideration for coming to the conclusion  

that death is indeed a murder with intention to cause death or the  

knowledge  that death will probably be caused. From the testimonies  

of  the  witnesses,  it  does  not  reveal  that  the  accused  persons  

intended to cause death and with that intention they started inflicting  

injuries on the body of the deceased.  Even more important aspect is  

that while they were beating the deceased the witnesses reached the  

place and shouted whereupon the accused persons immediately ran  

away instead of inflicting more injuries with intent to kill the deceased.  

19. In the case of  Gurdip Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab,  

(1987) 2 SCC 14,  this Court came across a similar type of incident,  

where the prosecution case was that  one Maya Bai had two sons  

and two brothers.  She was the mother of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and  

sister of accused Nos. 3 and 4.  The deceased  was one Kishore  

Singh.  The accused suspected that Mayabai had illicit relations with  

the deceased.  Hence one day when the deceased was returning  

1 7

Page 18

from  village  and  when  he  reached  the  field  of  Kashmiri  Lal,  the  

accused came out of the wheat field.  The first appellant had a kirpan  

and the second appellant  had  kappa.  It  was alleged that  the four  

accused took deceased on wheat field and threw him on the ground.  

One  of the acquitted  accused Jit Singh caught hold of arms of the  

deceased and the two appellants  caused injuries with the weapons  

in their  hands.  There was an alarm created by Lachhman Singh,  

PW-3, which had attracted PW-4 and Mohinder Singh.  When they  

reached the spot, the accused ran away with their weapons.  The  

deceased  had  seven  injuries  on  his  body.   Injury  No.7  was  fatal  

according to the doctor, who examined him.  It was argued that the  

prosecution  had  not  come  forward  with  true  case  as  to  how  the  

incident happened.  The trial Judge found two accused Jit Singh and  

Teja Singh  not guilty, since the case against them was not proved  

beyond  the  reasonable  doubt.   The  appellants  were  convicted  

because they had weapons with them unlike the acquitted accused.  

This Court on consideration of the entire evidence did not interfere  

with the findings that the appellants were responsible for the death of  

the deceased by attacking him with the weapons in their hands, but  

on reappraisal of the entire evidence, the Court found it  difficult to  

1 8

Page 19

agree with the trial court that the appellants were guilty of the offence  

under Section 302 IPC.  Hence, converting the offence under Section  

304 Part I, this Court observed:-

“6. The trial Judge was not wholly justified  in observing that there was no evidence about  the so-called illicit relationship between Maya  Bai  and  Kishore  Singh,  the  deceased.  The  materials  available  create  considerable  doubt  in our mind as to whether the appellants really  intended to kill  Kishore Singh or whether his  misconduct  pushed  them  to  wreak  revenge  against  the  deceased  and  in  this  pursuit  attacked him. We are not unmindful of the fact  that the 7th injury noted in the post-mortem  certificate is in the ordinary course sufficient to  cause the death of the deceased. But we are  not fully satisfied that the appellants intended  to kill the deceased. The correct approach on  the evidence and other circumstances in this  case,  would  according  to  us,  be  to  find  the  accused guilty under Section 304 Part I, and to  sentence them under that section.”

20. After  analyzing the entire evidence, it  is  evidently  clear  

that  the  occurrence  took  place  suddenly  and  there  was  no  

premeditation  on the part of the appellants.  There is no evidence  

that  the  appellants  made  special  preparation  for  assaulting  the  

deceased with the intent  to kill  him.  There is no dispute that  the  

appellants  assaulted deceased in such a manner that the deceased  

suffered grievous injuries which was sufficient to cause death, but we  

1 9

Page 20

are convinced that the injury was not intended by the appellants to kill   

the deceased.

21. In  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  in  our  

considered opinion, the instant case falls under Section 304 Part II  

IPC as stated above.  Although the appellants had no intention to  

cause death but it can safely be inferred that the appellants knew that  

such bodily injury was likely to cause death, hence the appellants are  

guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and are liable to  

be punished under Section 304 Part II IPC.

22. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the trial court and  

the High Court and convert the conviction under Section 302 to 304  

Part II IPC, and sentence the appellants to ten years’ imprisonment.  

The  appeal  is,  therefore,  disposed  of  with  the  modification  in  the  

conviction and sentence as indicated above.

……………………………..J. (P. Sathasivam)

……………………………..J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

New Delhi, April 26, 2013.   

2 0

Page 21

2 1

Page 22