The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to support a conviction under a specific section of the Indian Penal Code.

1. - The appellants Chauthi and Haria were convicted Under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default, to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment each by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, vide judgment dated 20th April, 1974.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24-4-1973 at about 2. 00, p.m., Nathua, decesed, was coming from the side of village Kodia Mahavir. When he reached near Madvi Meharwa the appellants along with three others, namely, Ramji Lal, Khilari and Kirodi surrounded the deceased a id beat him with 'lathis' to death It is said that the occurrence was witnessed by Babu, Sugan, Gir Raj and lamdhan, The dead body of Nathua was then carried in a cart by Kissan Meena to the house of the deceased Ram Bharosi lodged the written first information report Ex. P/1 at the Police Station, Gadmora on the same day at about 10.00, p.m., on which the S.H.O. Gadmora registered a case Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. There after the S.H.O. visited the spot and prepared the site plan. He also prepared the 'panchnama' Ex. P/11 and observed and noted the it juries on the person of the deceased. Ali the five accused persons were arrested and the autopsy was got conducted of the dead body of the deceased. After usual investigation charge-sheet was presented against all the five accused persons in the court of Munsiff and Magistrate, First Class, Hindon, who committed the accused persons for trial. Cairges Under Sections 147, 302 or 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, were framed against the accused persons. The same were read over and explained to them. The accused persons, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Ramdhan, PW. 2 Girraj, PW. 3 Sugan, PW 4 Babu, PW 5 Mst. Keshar, PW 6 Ram Bharosi, and PW. 7 Roop Singh. The statement of Dr. Mahesh Chand Bapna recorded in the committing court, was taken on record and was marked as PW. 8 and he was recalled and was permitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and was further cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons.

4. The statement of the accused persons were recorded in which they denied the prosecution case. No evidence was led in defence.

5. After hearing the arguments the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, acquitted the accused persons Ramjilal, Khilari and Kirodi of the offences with which they were charged. He, however, convicted the accused-appellants Chauthi and Haria for the offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated above.

6. Dissatisfied with their convictions and sentences the accused Chauthi and Haria preferred this appeal.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge seriously erred in convicting the appellants for the offence Under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. There is not an iota of evidence that the appellants caused any grievous injuries to Nathua. The learned Judge held the appellants guilty Under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, with the observation that the appellants have been proved to have inflicted 'lathi, injuries, they can be presumed to have intended to cause grievous injuries to Nathua deceased, so it would be safer to convict them Under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel urged that the said observation of the learned Judge is neither warranted by facts nor by law. He pointed out that firstly no such presumption with regard to the intention of the appellants could be raised nor the appellants could be convicted Under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, without this proof that the appellants caused any grievous injuries on the person of the deceased He urged that the conviction of the appellants for the offence Under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained, so deserves to be set aside. The learned Counsel did not ser