Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 15.11.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar Camp Behror, in Sessions Case No. 65/1983, whereby accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years' RI together with fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' RI.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

"On 15.6.1983, on FIR came to be lodged at Police Station Behror by Gangaram in respect of an occurrence alleged to have taken place on the same day. On the basis of said report, the case was registered for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. Thereafter investigation was started and on completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 307, 325, 341 and 323 IPC before the Magistrate concerned. Thereafter the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the case to Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar Camp Behror. The trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 307 IPC, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has produced the witnesses and exhibited some documents. The appellants produced as many as 5 witnesses in their defence, whose statements were also recorded. The statement of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has passed the judgment and order dated 15.1.1988 convicting and sentencing the accused appellants, as indicated here-in-above."

3. Against the said judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellants have filed the instant appeal.

4. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that accused appellant Surender Singh has expired, as such the appeal qua appellant Surendra Singh has abated.

5. So far as the appeal of appellant Mahendra Singh is concerned, learned counsel for the accused appellants has contended that the accused appellant Mahender Singh is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He has further contended that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the accused appellant Mahender Singh, as such conviction of the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC is not proper. He has further contended that in absence of specific charge under Section 34 IPC, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 307 IPC. He has further contended that according to the prosecution, injured Dalip had sustained 9 injuries in total, whereas according to PW-10 Dr. Vijay Singh Yadav, injury No. 6, 8 and 9 were simple and injuries No. 1 to 5 and 7 are also caused by blunt object, but since there was no fracture hence they were also simple in nature. As far injury No. 7, 8 and 9 are concerned, according to Doctor, they could be caused by single blow. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that injuries were dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature and as such no case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the appellant.

6. He has further contended that the trial court has wrongly believed upon the statement of PW.3 Dr. P.A. Agarwal and PW.10 Dr. Vijay Singh Yadav as there is a material contradiction in between the statements of these two Doctors, but no positive inference could be drawn from the statements of these doctors to reach on the conclusion that the injuries were dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the cross-examination part of the statement of PW.3 and PW.10, which is reproduced as under:-

PW-3 Dr. P.A. Agarwal:

^^nyhi ds 'kjhj ij flj dh lhus dh o Vdus dh pksV vdsyh vius vki esa izk.k?kkrd ugha Fkh cfYd lkewfgd :i ls izk.k?kkrd FkhA eSus esjh ;g jk; et:c dks ns[kdj rFkk ,Dljs dks ns[k dj nh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd flj dh pksVks dh batjh fjiksVZ esa xgjkbZ ntZ ugha gSA vr