ORDER

1. By this order we are disposing of the appeals filed by the complainant, the State of V.P. and one of the three accused, namely, J.B. Katariya (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") against the judgment dated 14-2-2002 rendered by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2350 of 1997, 22 of 1998 and 1315 of 1998.

2. The appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 342 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The other two accused, namely, Ghanshyam Shatma and Ram Narain were tried for the offences under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 342 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC but were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC as also under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The accused filed two appeals (one by the appellant and the other by Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain) to challenge their conviction by the trial court. The State of V.P. also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that of Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the State but allowed the one filed by Ghanshyam and Ram Narain and set aside their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 342 IPC. So far as the appellant is concerned, the High Court allowed his appeal in part and altered his conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The High Court also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for six months.

4. The learned counsel for the parties took us through the entire evidence and made their submissions. Shri Jaspal Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant and Shri Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of V.P. argued that charge under Section 302 IPC was established against the appellant beyond any pale of doubt and the High Court committed a serious error by converting his conviction from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

5. Shri Jaspal Singh emphasised that the appellant's case falls under clause Thirdly of Section 300 inasmuch as he had inflicted as many as 18 injuries on the person of the deceased and the same were sufficent to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The learned counsel submitted that after arresting the deceased, Virendra Singh in a false case registered under Section 307 IPC, the appellant mercilessly assaulted him while in custody and inflicted injuries on different parts of his body which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

6. Shri Jaspal Singh made a pointed reference to Para 6 of the statement of Dr. C.N. Shukla (PW 8) and argued that in view of unequivocal assertion of the witness that the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death, the High Court was not justified in altering the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. Both, Shri Jaspal Singh and Shri Ratnakar Dash argued that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the High Court has rightly altered the conviction of the appellant, the sentence of 2 years of imprisonment awarded to him is wholly disproportionate to the seriou