Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a lesser offense than murder and is committed when a person acts with the knowledge that their actions are likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death or serious bodily injury.

1. - This appeal was filed by accused-appellants (1) Dharma Ram s/o Kishnaji and (2) Chaina Ram s/o Dharma Ram, both by-caste Girasia residents of Jhamela Phali Peepla, Tehsil Bali, District Pali. Both the appellants in this appeal have challenged the judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 60/2005 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Bali, District Pali, whereby both the accused-appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code by life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, each of the accused-appellants was ordered to serve one year's additional imprisonment.

2. When the appeal was filed, both the accused-appellants were in custody, but now one of the accused-appellants, namely,Chaina Ram is on bail, while other accused-appellant Dharma Ram is in jail. The period of custody suffered by them is said to be as follows:-

(1) Accused-appellant Dharma Ram was arrested on 4.6.2005 and since then till today he is in jail.

(2) Accused-appellant Chaina Ram was arrested on 10.6.2005. He was bailed out on 2.3.2006 but at the time of judgment, he was again taken in custody on 13.10.2006 and then he was enlarged on bail under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code on 8.2.2007.

3. In the memo of appeal, it has been argued that the judgment of the trial court is not based on facts or evidence, three assailants were named in the FIR but out of them, Roopa Ram, one of the alleged assailants was not charge-sheeted by the police, alleged extra-judicial confession before Lakha Ram and Neeba Ram has not been proved because both these witnesses have not come in the witness-box before the court, all the alleged eye-witnesses were present on the spot when the Investigating Officer had reached the spot but their statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code were not recorded on the same day and they were examined by the Investigating Officer only on the 3rd day of the incident.

4. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellants that out of the seven injuries mentioned in the Postmortem Report of Ganesh, five injuries were by sharp-edged weapons and two injuries were by blunt weapons, but the doctor has not stated that all the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Due to cumulative effect of all the injuries, excessive bleeding occurred and because of that Ganesh has expired as per the Postmortem Report.

5. It has further been argued that accused Chaina Ram was having a 'Dhanush' with him but no pointed injury of 'Dhanush-Teer'(arrow) had been found on the body of the deceased. It has also been argued that no 'Dhanush' has been recovered from Chaina Ram and only a lathi was recovered from him and that creates doubt about his presence on the spot.

6. It has further been argued that there were so many contradictions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which have been ignored by the trial court while convicting both the accused-appellants. Alternatively, it has been argued that if the courts comes to the conclusion that no case of acquittal is made out then both the accused-appellants should be released on undergone sentence at the most under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the arguments of the appellants. It has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that while accused persons were beating the victim Ganesh, witnesses had reached the spot and soon after their arrival, both the accused-appellants were able to escape and run away from the spot after causing death of Ganesh. It has also been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that there was no one else who could have caused death of Ganesh in the circumstances of the case and further more, there was no reason with the witnesses to falsely implicate Dharma Ram and Chaina Ram and allowing the real culprit to escape. In the light of aforesaid arguments, we have perused t