The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for corroboration in witness testimony and the careful assessment of medical evidence to determine the applicability of different sections of the Indian Penal Code.

L. N. CHHANGANI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Jiwaram against the judgment dated 13th July, 1964 of the additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, convicting him under Section 304 Part II, indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, 3 months further rigorous imprisonment, and under section 323, Indian Penal Code to a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, months further rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant and two other persons, roop Singh-his father-and Mst. Bhudevi- his wife-may be briefly stated as follows:

( 3 ) DECEASED Kalyansingh and the injured Sughadsingh Pw/3 and the three accused were all residents of village Noorpur. The accused Roopsingh is the uncle of sughadsingh and the deceased Kalyansingh (alias Kaluva ). It is said that relations between the accused and the deceased and Sughadsingh had not been happy for some years past. The prosecution case further is that in the evening of i3th March, 1963, a she-buffalo of Sughadsingh caused some damage to the fodder of roopsingh and Jiwaram in consequence of which Jeewaram and Mst. Bhudevi belaboured Mst. Bhanwari Pw/5 mother of Sughadsingh and Mst. Draupadi--wife of kalyansingh. Sughadsingh was Dot in the village but was at Bharatpur in connection with his service in Central India Machine Manufacturing Company, when he arrived in the village in the morning of 14th March, 1963, Mst. Bhanwari and Mst. Draupadi narrated to him the incident which had happened the previous evening. Thereupon Sughadsingh went to Roopsingh to protest. Roopsingh is reported to have said that till then he had belaboured his mother and sister-in-law but now he would belabour Sughadsingh also. Sughadsingh then went to the common baithak and sat there. After a while, all the three accused came armed with lathi and spear and assaulted Sughadsingh. Kaluva, the deceased, also happened to arrive on the scene and the three accused, it is alleged, inflicted injuries both upon Sughadsingh and Kaluva. Kaluva on receiving the injuries fell on the ground and died on the spot. A report was lodged by Kanjra Pw/6 at the Police outpost, Chiksana, and the same was forwarded to the Police Station, Sevar, After investigation the Police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant and roopsingh and Mst. Bhudevi under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal code, in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Bharatpur. After enquiry, the Munsif magistrate committed them to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The case was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur.

( 4 ) THE prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. The accused denied their guilt but led no evidence in defence.

( 5 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge held that Jiwaram inflicted injuries to sughadsingh. He also held that Jiwaram inflicted three spear blows to the deceased Kaluva, He, however, held that the other two accused did not inflict any injuries to the deceased Kaluva as long as Kaluva was alive. According to the additional Sessions Judge if they caused any injuries, they had been inflicted after kaluva had died. The Additional Sessions Judge considered the question of the applicability of Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and recorded a conclusion that the three accused had not been animated by any common intention. They might have had similar intention but similar intention could Dot be equated with common intention. In the result, he acquitted the two co-accused Roopsingh and Mst. Bhudevi, and convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated earlier.

( 6 ) THE convictions and sentences of the appellants have been challenged in this appeal and the first submission made by Mr. Chatterji is that even on accepting the prosecution allegation in its entirety, no case under Section 304, Part II, indian Penal Code, is made out on a proper interpretation of the medical evidence. Dr. B. P. Jangid Pw/l is the medical witnes