JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in concluding that the convicted appellants before it were not guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as has been held by the trial court and holding the said appellants guilty of a lesser offence punishable under sections 324 and 325 IPC? For the purpose of deciding this question, we will deal with only such facts as are necessary for disposal of this appeal.

2. In view of the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court against which there is no appeal by the convicted accused, the fact that in the incident as alleged by the prosecution on 8.4.1989 at 4.45 a.m. PWs 2 and 3 suffered injuries as also the fact that in the second incident which took place at 5.15 a.m. the mother and brother of PWs 2 and 3 were injured and because of the injuries so suffered one of the victims Narsimha Reddy died on 13.4.1989, is not disputed. Therefore, the incidents as found by the trial court and the High Court against the appellants has become final. In that background, the trial court convicted A-1, A-2, A-5 to A-8 of the offence under section 324 IPC. It convicted A-3 and A-4 of an offence under section 324 read with 149 IPC.

A-1 to A-5 and A-8 were convicted for offence under section 324 IPC for causing hurt to PW-3.

A-6 and A-7 were found guilty of offence under section 324 read with section 149 IPC.

A-1 to A-5 to A-7 were found guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC.

A-3, A-4 and A-8 were found guilty under section 302 read with section 149. A-1 to A-9 and A-10 were acquitted of the charge under section 323 IPC. It awarded a sentence of 1 year to all the convicted accused under section 148 and those convicted under section 324 read with 149 IPC and awarded imprisonment for life to those convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

3. In an appeal filed against the said judgment to the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, the High Court allowed the said appeal in part and convicted A-1, A-6 and A-7 for an offence punishable under section 325 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo RI for 6 months. They were further convicted for an offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The High Court convicted accused 2, 5 and 8 for an offence under section 324 read with 34 IPC and the High Court held that the sentence already undergone would suffice for the said offence. However, they were imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default to undergo RI for a period of 3 months each. A-1, A-2 and A-5 to A-8 were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

5. In this appeal the State of Andhra Pradesh contends that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the acts of the accused which caused the death of Narsimha Reddy would not amount to an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State submitted the High Court having accepted the finding of facts of courts below and having noticed the fact that nearly 8 persons armed with deadly weapons had assaulted 4 persons, out of which to the deceased, they caused such grievous injuries knowing very well that the said injuries would in the normal course cause the death of the victim, it could not have found them guilty of offence under Section 325 only. He also submitted from the material on record it is clear that all those persons who assaulted the deceased, had also the intention to kill the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, of course, has justified the judgment of the High Court.

7. The point to be considered by us in this appeal, therefore is whether the respondents before us did cause the injury to deceased Narsimha Reddy with an intention o