IMPORTANT POINT
When the accused emerged from their house and beat with deadly weapon on the vital parts of the body and death occurred as a result of injuries, they are liable to be convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. High Court was wrong in converting their conviction under Section 304 Part II, IPC.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. The facts are that in the evening of December 6, 1989, the deceased Rati Ram, who was Lambardar of the village, had gone on stroll outside the village. While he was coming at about 8.30 p.m., the appellants emerged from their house and each of them having been armed with massals, A-1 had attacked the deceased when he came in front of their house, on the head and hit him three times on different parts. When the deceased had fallen, A-2 again beaten him thrice on chest, abdomen and other parts of the body. PW-6 and 7, the son and brother of the deceased, who were coming in search of him had witnessed the occurrence. When PW-7 raised the cry, the accused had gone in and went away. The deceased was taken to the hospital. He died five days thereafter. The doctor, PW-9, R.M. Singh, conducted autopsy. He noted seven injuries and injury Nos. 2 and 3 were head injuries. Injury No. 2 was a lacerated would which was inflicted on the right mastoid region of size of 4 x 1 cm. It was irregular in shape. According to the doctor, the cause of the death was due to speticaemia resulted as a result of head-injury and was sufficient to cause death in oridinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante/mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He had stated that "Septicasemie is the direct result of the head-injury. This not is deceased. In other words, head injury is the cause of death. The injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused by musals Ex. P-1 and P-2." In the cross-examination, he stated that "Septicaemia has no relation with bleeding. It is incorrect to suggest that injuries in this case are not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Sessions Court convicted the respondents, applying clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court had applied exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and converted the offence of murder into culpable homicide not amounting to murder and convicted under Section 304 Part II and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment to the period already undergone and accordingly got them released. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. It is not a case of a sudden fight upon heat of passion. The accused bet the deceased taking undue advantage. Therefore, Shri Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, fairly and rightly has not placed his case under Exception 4 to Section 300. On the other hand he contended that when death was due to septicasemie, it cannot be referable to the cause of the death in the ordinary course of nature due to anti mortem injuries and that, therefore, the offence of murder has not been made out. In support thereof, he sought to place reliance on Lyon s Medical Jurisprudence for India (Tenth Edition) at page 222. It is stated therein that "Danger to life depends, primarily, on the amount of hemorrhage, on the organ wounded, and on the extent of shock; secondarily, on secondary hemorrhage, on the occurrence of septicaemia, erysipelas, tetanus, or other complications. In answering the question whether a wound is dangerous to life, the danger must be assessed on the probable primary effects of the injury : Such possibilities as the occurrence of tetanus or septicaemia, later on, are not to be taken into consideration." Though the learned counsel had not read the later part of the opinion, the medical evidence on record do clearly establish that Septicaemia is not the primary cause and the death was due to injuries caused to the deceased and they are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Septicaemia would, therefore, not be taken into account.

4. Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC envisages that if the act is done with intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinar