ATMARAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                     (2012] 4 S.C.R. 529


                      ATMARAM & ORS.                                 A
                                V.
               STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
             (Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2008)

                         MAY 10, 2012
                                                                     B
   [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

     PENAL CODE, 1860:

     ss. 302, 3021149, 307 and 3071149 - Five accused                c
attacking two brothers and their sister with various weapons -
One of the brothers died - Conviction and sentence of life
imprisonment awarded to all the five accused by trial court -
Affirmed by High Court - Held: The presence of the two
injured eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence has been            D
established beyond reasonable doubt - They are reliable
witnesses and worthy of credence - They have stated that all
the accused caused injuries to the deceased with 'farsi',
'dharia' and 'lathis' - The medical evidence shows 10 injuries
on the body of the deceased - The motive has also been               E
brought out - The fact that the injuries were inflicted by a
collective offence upon the deceased and the injured
witnesses, is duly demonstrated not only by the medical report,
but also by the statements of the doctors - Thus, the
prosecution has been able to establish its case.
                                                                     F
      s. 300, 3rdly - Murder - Held: If there is an intention to
kill and with that intent, injury is caused which is sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the offence
would clearly fall within the ambit of para '3rdly' of s. 300 and,
therefore, would be culpable homicide amounting to murder            G
- In the instant case, the intention on the part of the accused
persons to kill the deceased was manifest - The cause for
having such an intent is also proved by the prosecution - The
manner in which all the accused assaulted the deceased even
                               529                                   H
    530     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.

A after he fell to the ground and the act of continuously inflicting
  blows on the body of the deceased, clearly shows that they
  had a pre-determined mind to kill the deceased at any cost,
  which they did - The accused even caused injuries to the vital
  parts of the body of the deceased - The cumulative effect of
B all the injuries was obviously known to each of the accused,
  i.e., all the injuries inflicted were bound to result in the death
  of the deceased which, in fact, they intended - Furthermore,
  the doctor had opined that the deceased had died because
  of multiple injuries and fracture on the vital organs, due to
c shock and haemorrhage.
         The five accused appellants were prosecuted for
    causing the murder of the brother of PW-1 and causing
    injuries to PW-1 and PW-2. The prosecution case was
    that on the day of incident at about 4-4.30 p.m., when PW-
D   1, his younger brother 'G' and sister PW-2 were returning
    to their village and had reached near the village, the five
    accused-appellants emerged from the fields shouting that
    the said 'G' and his relatives had set their soyabean crop
    afire and attacked the complainant party with farsi, dharia
E   and lathis. The injured were taken to the hospital with the
    help of PW 8 and others. On the basis of the statement
    of PW1, a dehati nalish was recorded at about 6.20 p.m.
    At about 7 p.m. the statement of injured 'G' was also
    recorded in the presence of the witnesses. His condition
F   being serious, arrangements were made to shift him to
    Civil Hospital, but he died on the way at about 11.30 p.m.
    The trial court convicted the five accused ulss 302, 3021
    149, 307 and 307/149 IPC etc. and sentenced all of them
    to imprisonment for life with fine. The High Court
G   confirmed the conviction and the sentence awarded by
    the trial court.
      In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
  appellants that there were serious contradictions
  between the statements of PWs 1 and 2; that the medical
H evidence did not support the statements of PWs 1 and
     ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                531
                PRADESH
2; and that as per the medical evidence, there was no A
single injury which could be said to be sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause the death, there was
no intention on the part of the accused to cause the
death and, therefore, at best it could be a case u/s 304
(Part-II) and/or u/s 326 IPC and not a case u/s 302 IPC. .. B

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. From a bare reading of the statements of
PW-1 and PW-2, it is clear that according to PW1, not only
accused 'GK' had caused injury on the head of the            C
deceased by farsi but other accused persons had also
caused injuries to him with /athis etc. However, according
to PW2 accused 'GK', had caused injuries on the head
of the deceased, both hands, above the eyes and on the
wrist while other accused hit her. This cannot be termed     D
as a material contradiction in the statements of these two
witnesses. These are two eye-witnesses who themselves
were injured by the accused. Every variation is incapable
of being termed as a serious contradiction that may prove
fatal to the case of prosecution. It is a settled canon of   E
criminal jurisprudence that every statement of the witness
must be examined in its entirety and the court may not
rely or reject the entire statement of a witness merely by
reading one sentence from the deposition in isolation and
out of context. [para 12] [540-G-H; 541-A-C]                 F

     1.2. It has been completely established that both PW1
and PW2 are injured eye- witnesses and their presence
at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. If one
reads the statements of PW1 and PW2 in their entirety, it
will be difficult to trace any element of serious            G
contradiction in their statements which may prove fatal
to the case of the prosecution. PW2 has categorically
stated that all the accused persons had come to the site,
abused her brother 'G' and claimed that he had burnt
their soyabean crop and that they would kill him.            H
    532    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A Whereafter, they started hitting her brothers, 'G' and PW-
  1. In the face of this specific statement and the medical
  evidence which shows presence of as many as ten
  injuries on the body of the deceased, it is difficult to
  believe that in the given situation, one accused could
B ~ave caused so many injuries, especially when all
  accused persons are stated to have caused injuries to
  the deceased as well as to the witnesses. [para 12] (541-
  C-D, F-H; 542-A]

C       Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana 2010 (7 ) SCR 1119 =
    (2010) 12 sec 350 - referred to.

      1.3. It is true that some other witnesses have turned
  hostile and have not fully supported the case of the
  prosecution, but that by itself would not be a
D circumstance for the court to reject the statements of
  PW1 and PW2, who are reliable and worthy of credence
  and more particularly, when their presence at the place
  of occurrence has been established beyond reasonable
  doubt. [para 13] (543-C-D]
E
       2.1. As per the statement of PW14, who had prepared
  the post mortem report, Ext. P30, there were as many as
  ten injuries on the body of the deceased. All that PW1 and
  PW2 have stated is that the accused had inflicted the
  injury on the head of the deceased with a tarsi and even
F on other parts of the body of the deceased. According
  to them, even other accused had inflicted injuries upon
  the body of the deceased with lathis. The accused were
  carrying tarsi, dharia and lathis, as per the statements of
  these witnesses. The medical evidence clearly shows
G that there were incised wounds, contusions, lacerated
  wounds and swelling found in the various injuries on the
  body of the deceased. The Investigating Officer, PW26,
  has clearly proved the case of the prosecution with the
  assistance of the corroborating evidence. (para 14 and15]
H (543-E; 544-H; 545-A-B]
     ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                  533
                PRADESH

     2.2. It is significant to refer to some pertinent aspects A
of the case of the prosecution. The incident had occurred
at about 4.30 p.m. on 6.11.1993 and the FIR itself was
registered at 6.30 p.m. on the statement of PW1 recorded
in the hospital. The doctor had also recorded the dying
declaration (Ext. P-6) of the deceased. After recording of B
the FIR, (Ext. P-37), the investigation was started
immediately and on the second day, the accused were
taken into custody. Names of all the accused were duly
shown in Column No.7 of the FIR. Two witnesses, PW1
and PW2, have given the eye witness version of the c
occurrence. All the accused persons were hiding
themselves in the field and had a clear intention to kill the
deceased. The motive for commission of the offence
which, of course, is not an essential but is a relevant
consideration, has also been brought out in the case of D
the prosecution that the deceased had allegedly burnt the
soyabean crops of the accused and, therefore, the
accused wanted to do away with the deceased and his
brother. These factors have been clearly brought out in
the statement of PW1 and PW2. [para 16-17] [545-C-D; E
546-A-C]

    2.3. The fact that the injuries were inflicted by a
collective offence upon the deceased and the injured
witnesses is duly demonstrated not only by the medical
report, but also by the statements of the doctors, PW4         F
and PW14. Thus, the prosecution has been able to
establish its case. [para 17] [546-D]

    3.1. It is incorrect to suggest that the Court should
exercise its discretion to alter the offence to one u/s 304    G
(Part II) or s.326 IPC from that u/s 302 IPC. If there is an
intention to kill and with that intent, injury Is caused
which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature, then the offence would clearly fall within the
ambit of para '3rdly' of s. 300 IPC and, therefore, would      H
be culpable homicide amounting to murder. In the instant
    534    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 4 S.C.R.

A case, the intention on the part of the accused persons to
  kill 'G' was manifest as is evident from the statements of
  PW1 and PW2. The cause for having such an intent is
  also proved by the prosecution that according to the
  accused, the deceased and PW1 had burnt their
B soyabean crops. The manner in which all the accused
  assaulted the deceased even after he fell to the ground
  and the act of continuously inflicting blows on the body
  of the deceased, clearly shows that they had a pre-
  determined mind to kill the deceased at any cost, which
c they did. The accused even caused injuries to the vital
  parts of the body of the deceased, i.e., the skull. As per
  the medical evidence, there was incised wound of 5Yz"x
  skull thick on left skull region, which shows the brutality
  with which the said head injury was caused to the
0 deceased.   (para 19, 20 and 23) (547-G-H; 548-A-B; 549-
  C-D; 552-C]

       State of Haryana v. Shakuntala & Ors. 2012 (4) SCALE
  526; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya &
  Anr. 1977 (1) SCR 601 = (1976) 4 SCC 382; and Anda &
E Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 148 - relied on

        Mo/u & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1976) 4 SCC 362; and
    Rattan Singh & Ors.v. State of Punjab 1988 Supp. SCC 456
    - distinguished.
F      3.2. The cumulative effect of all the injuries was
  obviously known to each of the accused, i.e., all the
  injuries inflicted were bound to result in the death of the
  deceased which, in fact, they intended. Furthermore, the
  doctor, PW14, had opined that the deceased had died
G because of multiple injuries and fracture on the vital
  organs, due to shock and haemorrhage. Thus, even as
  per the medical evidence, the injuries were caused on the
  vital parts of the body of the deceased. [para 22) (551-H;
  552-A-B]
H
      ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                        535
                 PRADESH
                       Case Law Reference:                            A
     2010 (7) SCR 1119          referred to             para 12
     1976 (4) sec 362           distinguished           para 18
     1977 (1) SCR 601           relied on               para 21
                                                                      B
     1988 Suppl.    sec 456 distinguished               para 18
     2012 (4) SCALE 526         relied on               para 19
    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2003 of 2008.                                                     c
    From the Judgment & Order dated 23.01.2008 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal
No. 783 of 1999.
   K.B. Sinha, Niraj Sharma, Vikrant Singh Bais, Sumit                D
Kumar Sharma for the Appellants.
     Praveena Gautam, C.D. Singh for the Respondent.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed                   E
against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Bench at Indore dated 23rd January, 2008. We may notice the
necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal. According
to the prosecution, Udayram, PW-1 along with his younger
brother namely Gokul (the deceased) and sister Rajubai, PW-           F
2 had gone to the village Lod for pilgrimage. After they reached
the said village, they came to know that the Pujari who was to
perform the puja was not available. Resultantly, all the said three
persons decided to return back to their village Dhuvakhedi,
Tehsil Tarana, District Ujjain.                                       G
      2. At about 4-4.30 p.m., when they reached near the said
village, all of a sudden the accused persons namely Atmaram,
Gokul, Vikram, Ramchandran and Umrao emerged from the
fields having soyabean crop. They shouted that the deceased
and his relatives had set their soyabean crop afire and               H
    536      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A therefore, they should be taught a lesson. The accused
  Ramachandra was armed with tarsi, Gokul was carrying dharia
  and other three accused were having lathis. All these accused
  persons started assaulting Udayram (PW1) causing injury on
  his head, left hand and legs. Gokul (the deceased) and PW2
B tried to intervene and protect Udayram. In this process, both
  these witnesses sustained a number of injuries caused by the
  accused with the help of the same weapons. The other
  witnesses present at the site, Gajrajsingh, Sardarsingh and
  Gokul did not interfere in the assault because of fear and silently
C slipped away.
        3. Another witness, Pannalal, PW8, was working in the
  fields nearby. Upon being called by Rajubai, PW2, Pannalal
  came to the place of occurrence and seeing the deceased and
  witnesses in injured condition, Pannalal and one Prem brought
D the bullock cart of one Kanhaiya Balai. Thereafter, one Umrao
  Bai also joined them. They finally found a jeep on the road in
  which Pannalal, Prem and Umrao Bai took the injured persons
  to the Tarana Hospital where they were admitted. From the
  hospital, information was sent to the Police Station, Makdon
E on which basis, the Head Constable Chedilal Yadav, PW23,
  reached Tarana Hospital. On the basis of the statement of
  Udayram, PW1, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P1) was recorded at about
  6.20 p.m. on 6th November, 1993.

       4. A case under Section 307 read with Sections 147, 148
F and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') was
  registered. All the three injured persons were subjected to
  medical examination by Dr. Anil Kumar Dubey, PW4, who
  issued their MLC reports, Ex.P2-A to P.4-A. Udayram and
  Rajubai were treated by the doctors. At about 7 p.m., the
G statement of Gokul was also recorded in the presence of the
  witnesses. Keeping in view the serious condition of Gokul, he
  was required to be transferred from Tarana Hospital to Civil
  Hospital, Ujjain for treatment. However, he died on the way at
  about 11.30 p.m. on 6th November, 1993 and his dead body
H was kept in the Civil Hospital, Ujjain. Information was sent to
      ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                         537
        PRADESH [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
the Police Station, Makdon, whereafter an offence of Section            A
302 read with Section 149 IPC was added to the charges.

     5. Inquest proceedings were completed. The dead body
of the deceased was subjected to post mortem and post
mortem report Ext. P30 was prepared by Dr. Ajay Nigam                   8
(PW14).

     6. After registration of the offence, the investigating officer,
PW26, Sohan Pal Singh Choudhary visited the spot of
occurrence on 7th November, 1993, from where the blood
stained earth, cycle and sandal of the deceased were seized             C
and the spot map was prepared. On 8th November, 1993, all
the accused persons were arrested. Upon their interrogation
and in furtherance to their statements, the arms involved in the
commission of crime were recovered and seized. These seized
weapons were sent to forensic science laboratory for                    D
examination on 3rd December, 1993. The examination report
was received on 8th December, 1993 and in terms of the
Report, no blood stain was found, either in the soil or in the
sealed tarsi. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge
sheet to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Upon committal,           E
the accused were tried by the Court of Sessions.

     7. The learned Trial Court vide its detailed judgment dated
13th April, 1999 held that the prosecution had succeeded in
proving the charges, while finding all the accused guilty of the
                                                                        F
offences with which they were charged. It sentenced them as
follows:-

     "46. On the point of punishment, on behalf of accused
     evidence were not produced on conviction. The counsel
     for accused produced oral argument and prayed for least            G
     punishment to accused whereas Assistant Public
     Prosecutor have prayed for harder conviction.

     47. In any opinion from the case, it is clear that this is the
     first offence of accused. Looking into the circumstances           H
    538      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A         under which crime is committed and nature of crime, it
          does not seem proper to convict with life imprisonment
          under Section 302 l.P.C. and it seems proper to convict
          accused for life imprisonment and fine. Therefore, all the
          five accused shall be convicted under Section 148 l.P.C.
B         with rigorous imprisonment of two years. Accused
          Ramchandra No. 4 is held guilty under Section 307 l.P.C.
          and Section 307/149 1.P.C. for both the offences
          prescribed punished is same, therefore, it is proper to
          convict accused Ramchandra only under Section 307/149
c         l.P.C. and accused Atmaram No. 1 for charges under
          Section 307 l.P.C. and accused Gokul No. 2, Vikram No.
          3, Ramchandra No. 4, Umrao No. 5 for Section 307 read
          with 149 l.P.C. shall be convicted respectively with rigorous
          imprisonment for 5 year each and fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs.
          five hundred) each. In default of payment of fine accused
D
          shall be imprisoned for another term of 2 month each.

          48. Similarly, accused Gokul No. 2 charged under Section
          302 1.P.C. and Section 302/149 l.P.C. and accused
          Vikram No. 3 was held guilty under Section 302 or Section
E         302 read with Section 149 l.P.C., whereas punishment
          prescribed for both the offences is same, both the accused
          are held guilty under Section 307/149 l.P.C. and accused
          Atmaram No. 1 is found guilty for charges under Section
          302, l.P.C. and accused No. 2, Gokul, No. 3 Vikram, No.
F         4 Ramchandra, No. 5 Umrao are found guilty under
          Section 302 read with Section 149 l.P.C. and convicted
          accordingly, and all the accused for such charges are
          convicted with life imprisonment and in addition all the
          accused are also punished with fine of Rs. 2000 (Two
G         Thousand Rupees) each. In default of payment of fine all
          the accused shall be imprisoned for another term of 4
          month each. Similarly, accused No. 5, Umrao, is charged
          under Section 323 l.P.C. and accused Atmaram No. 1
          Gokul No. 2, Vikram No. 3, and Ramchandra No. 4 are
H         found guilty under Section 323 read with Section 149 l.P.C.
     ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                       539
       PRADESH [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    and all the accused are convicted with 6 month rigorous          A
    imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200 each (Two Hundred
    Rupees). In default of payment of fine all the accused shall
    be imprisoned for another term of 1 month rigorous
    imprisonment each. All the punishment shall run
    concurrently.                                                    8

    49. During prosecution, accused No. 1 Atmaram from
    8.11.93 to 3.3.94, accused No. 2 Gokul from 8.11.93 to
    24.6.94, accused No. 3 Vikram from 8.11.93 to 3.3.94 and
    accused No. 4 Ramchandra from 11.1.93 to 6.1.94 and
    accused No. 5 Umrao from 11.11.93 to 6.1.94, were in             C
    judicial custody. Such duration shall be adjusted towards
    punishment.

    50. On payment of fine from accused and after the
    expiration of the period of limitation Rs. 8000/- from the       D
    amount of fine shall be paid to widowed mother of Gokul,
    Umraobai w/o Lalji r/o village Dhaukhedi, Thana Makdone,
    as compensation and from the said fine Rs. 5000 (Five
    Thousand Rupees) shall be paid to applicant Udairam s/
    o Lalji r/o Village Dhaukhedi, Thana Makdone.                    E

    51. After the expiration of period of appeal, blood mixed
    soil, simple soil, Sandel, cloths of Gokul, cloths of Udairam,
    and Farsi, Dharia, Lathi, seized from accused shall be
    discarded being available."
                                                                     F
    8. The Trial Court also punished them on other counts.

     9. Being aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused
preferred an appeal before the High Court, which by its              G
judgment dated 23rd January, 2008, confirmed the judgment
of the Trial Court and also did not interfere with the order of
sentence.

     10. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, all the five accused have
preferred the present appeal before this Court.                      H
    540      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A       11. While raising a challenge to the impugned judgment,
  the learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that
  there are serious contradictions between the statements of
  PW1 and PW2. These two witnesses being the eye-witnesses,
  such serious contradictions in their statements make the
B conviction of the appellants unsustainable on that basis. To
  substantiate his plea, the learned counsel for the appellants has
  relied upon the paragraph 2 of the deposition of PW2, Rajubai
  and paragraph 3 of the statement of PW1, Udayram. In order
  to properly appreciate the merit or otherwise of this contention,
c it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant paragraphs of
  deposition of these two witnesses. They, respectively, read as
  under:

          "2. Ramchandra hit Udairam with Farsi which hit on his
          head and both hands. My brother Gokul was hit by accused
D         Gokul with Dhariya due to which he got injuries on his
          head, both hands, above the eye and on the waist. Umrao
          hit me with two ladhi blows which hit me on my hand and
          foot. The accused hit a lot.

E         xxx                         ~xx               xxx
          3. Accused Ramchand had hit tarsi on my head, Atmaram
          had hit lathi which hit me near the joint of my left hand
          thumb. Accused Gokul hit my brother Gokul on the head
          with Dharia. Ramchand had hit after me, my brother Gokul
F         with tarsi on his head. The other accused started hitting
          my brother with lathi due to which my brother fell down and
          I was also attached with lathi. My sister Rajubai was also
          hit with lathi by accused Umrao. She had received injury
          on her hand and Rajubai also received injury on her foot."
G
        12. From a bare reading of the statements of these
  witnesses, it is clear that according to PW1, not only Gokul, the
  accused, had caused injury on the head of the deceased by
  farsi but accused persons had also caused injuries to him with
H lathis etc. However, according to PW2, Gokul, the accused, had
      ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                      541
        PRADESH [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
caused injuries on the head of the deceased, both hands,             A
above the eyes and on the wrist while other accused hit her.
This cannot be termed as a material contradiction in the
statements of these two witnesses. These are two eye-
witnesses who themselves were injured by the accused. Every
variation is incapable of being termed as a serious                  B
contradiction that may prove fatal to the case of prosecution. It
is a settled cannon of criminal jurisprudence that every
statement of the witness must be examined in its entirety and
the Court may not rely or reject the entire statement of a witness
merely by reading one sentence from the deposition in isolation      c
and out of context. In the present case, it has been completely
established that both PW1 and PW2 are injured eye-witnesses
and their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be
doubted. If one reads the statements of PW1 and PW2 in their
entirety, it will be difficult to trace any element of serious       D
contradiction in their statements which may prove fatal to the
case of the prosecution. PW2, even in the paragraph extracted
above has said that accused 'hit a lot'. However, the language
in which her statement was recorded states 'abhiyukton ne
khoob mara' which obviously means that all the accused had
hit the deceased and other victims including herself, because
                                                                     E
this sentence immediately precedes the part of the statement
where she gives details of all the accused persons as well as
the injuries inflicted on the deceased and herself by each of the
accused. The very first paragraph of her statement clearly
indicates the essence of her statement. She has categorically        F
stated that all the accused persons had come to the site,
abused her brother Gokul and clearly claimed that he had burnt
their soyabean crop and that they shall kill him. Whereafter, they
started hitting her brothers, Gokul and Udayram. In face of this
specific statement and the medical evidence which shows              G
presence of as many as ten injuries on the body of the
deceased Gokul, it is difficult to believe that in the given
situation, one accused could have caused so many injuries on
the body of deceased, especially when all accused persons are
stated to have caused injuries to the deceased as well as to         H
    542      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   the witnesses. It seems appropriate her to refer to a recent
    judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of
    Haryana [(2010) 12 SCC 350) wherein this Court, while
    dealing with the discrepancies in the statement of the
    witnesses, held as under :
B
          "41. The above statement of this witness (DW 3) in cross-
          examination, in fact, is clinching evidence and the accused
          can hardly get out of this statement. The defence would be
          bound by the statement of the witness, who has been
          produced by the accused, whatever be its worth. In the
c         present case, DW 3 has clearly stated that there was
          cruelty and harassment inflicted upon the deceased by her
          husband and in-laws and also that a sum of Rs. 5000 was
          demanded. The statement of this witness has to be read
          in conjunction with the statement of PW 1 to PW 3 to
D         establish the case of the prosecution. There are certain
          variations or improvements in the statements of PWs but
          all of them are of minor nature. Even if, for the sake of
          argument, they are taken to be as some contradictions or
          variations in substance, they are so insignificant and mild
E         that they would in no way be fatal to the case of the
          prosecution.

          42. This Court has to keep in mind the fact that the incident
          had occurred on 16-5-1988 while the witnesses were
F         examined after some time. Thus, it may not be possible
          for the witnesses to make statements which would be
          absolute reproduction of their earlier statement or line to
          line or minute to minute correct reproduction of the
          occurrence/events. The Court has to adopt a reasonable
          and practicable approach and it is only the material or
G
          serious contradictions/variations which can be of some
          consequence to create a dent in the case of the
          prosecution. Another aspect is that the statements of the
          witnesses have to be read in their entirety to examine their
          truthfulness and the veracity or otherwise. It will neither be
H
      ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                       543
        PRADESH [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    just nor fair to pick up just a line from the entire statement    A
    and appreciate that evidence out of context and without
    reference to the preceding lines and lines appearing after
    that particular sentence. It is always better and in the
    interest of both the parties that the statements of the
    witnesses are appreciated and dealt with by the Court upon        B
    their cumulative reading."

     13. In light of the above judgment, it is clear that every
variation or discrepancy in the statement of a witness cannot
belie the case of the prosecution per se. It is true that in the      C
present case, some other witnesses have turned hostile and
have not fully supported the case of the prosecution, but that
by itself would not be a circumstance for the Court to reject the
statements of PW1 and PW2, who are reliable and worthy of
credence and more particularly, when their presence at the
place of occurrence has been established beyond reasonable            D
doubt.

     14. The other contention which has been raised on behalf
of the appellants is that the medical evidence does not support
the statements of PW1 and PW2. This is equally devoid of any          E
merit. As per the statement of PW14, who had prepared the
post mortem report, Ext. P30, there were as many as ten injuries
on the body of the deceased and they were as follows :

     "Similarly on the said date itself, Gokul S/o. Laljiram @        F
     Lalchand was brought by Head Constable Chedilal for
     which he had brought Ex.P-3 letter. I examined him at 6.35
     p.m. and found the following injuries :

      (i)    Incised wound 5~ x scalp thick on left central region.
                                                                      G
      (ii)   Incised superficial (skin deep) 1 x Y4 cm. on right
             temple near eye. Both these injuries appear to have
             been caused by sharp edged seapon. It was not
             possible to understand injury No.1 therefore, X-ray
             advice was written and injury No.2 was simple and        H
             caused within 0-6 hrs.
    544          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A          (iii)   One contusion 12 x 8 cm on right forearm.

           (iv)    Swelling on left forearm Yi lower portion and Yi right
                   portion on left side.

          The aforesaid injuries appeared to have been caused with
B         hard and blunt object and X-ray was advised to ascertain
          seriousness.

           (v)     One lacerated wound with fracture 2 x 1 x Yi on right
                   leg in front on middle portion which appear to have
c                  been caused with hard and blunt weapon and was
                   serious within 0-6 hrs. and X-ray was advised for
                   the same.

           (vi)    Lacerated wound 1 x Yi x "!14 on lower portion of left
                   leg.
D
           (vii)   Swelling on left hand in full back portion.

           (viii) Swelling and contusion 13 x 4 cm. on left forearm
                  out and front portions. Injuries Nos.6, 7 and 8
E                 appear to have been caused with hard and blunt
                  weapon and simple caused within 0-6 hrs.

           (ix)    One contusion with parallel margin on left forearm
                   which appear to have been caused with hard and
                   blunt weapon like lathi and X-ray was advised for
F                  this injury.

           (x)     One contusion of parallel margin of 28 x 1 cm. in
                   front portion of the chest laterally. It appeared to
                   have been caused with hard and blunt weapon like
G                  lathi which was simple caused within 6 hrs."

          15. All that PW1 and PW2 have stated is that the accused
    had inflicted the injury on the head of the deceased with a farsi
    and even on other parts of the body of the deceased. According
    to them, even other accused had inflicted injuries upon the body
H
      ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                      545
        PRADESH [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
of the deceased with lathis. The accused were carrying farsi,        A
dharia and lathis, as per the statements of these witnesses. The
medical evidence clearly shows that there were incised
wounds, contusions, lacerated wounds and swelling found in the
various injuries on the body of the deceased. The Investigating
Officer, PW26, has clearly proved the case of the prosecution        B
with the assistance of the corroborating evidence. We see no
reason to accept this contention raised on behalf of the
appellants.

     16. Before dealing with the last contention raised on behalf    C
of the appellants, we may usefully refer to some pertinent
aspects of the case of the prosecution. In this case, the incident
had occurred at about 4.30 p.m. on 6th November, 1993 and
the FIR itself was registered at 6.30 p.m. on the statement of
PW1 recorded in the hospital. In the hospital itself, the doctor
had also recorded the dying declaration Ext. P-6 of the              D
deceased. The relevant part of the declaration reads as under:

     "My First question was : What is your name?

    Ans : Gokulsingh S/o Laljiram Lalsingh.
                                                                     E
     Q: Where do you live?

    Ans: Dhuankheri.

    I again asked what happened to you when he replied that
                                                                     F
    the well of Kanhaiya, myself, my brother Udayram and
    sister were hit by 5 brothers Ramchand, Umrao, Vikram,
    Gokul and Atmaram sons of Devaji of Balai caste. He
    stated so. Thereafter I asked where all have you received
    injuries whereupon he replied that on head, hands and legs.      G
    Thereafter I again asked who saw you being beaten up
    then he replied that we were seen by Udaysingh,
    Gokulsingh, Gajrajsingh, Ramchandra etc. I again asked
    what did you do thereupon he replied, what could we do,
    we were un-armed, we kept shouting. Our sister had tried
    to rescue us."                                                   H
    546     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A      17. After recording of the FIR, Ext. P-37 the investigation
  was started immediately and on the second day, the accused
  were taken into custody. Names of all the accused were duly
  shown in Column No.7 of the FIR. Two witnesses, P\N1 and
  PW2, have given the eye witness version of the occurrence. All
B the accused persons were hiding themselves in the field and
  had a clear intention to kill the deceased. The motive for
  commission of the offence which, of course, is not an essential
  but is a relevant consideration, has also been brought out in
  the case of the prosecution that the deceased had allegedly
c burnt their soyabean crops and, therefore, the accused wanted
  to do away with the deceased Gokul and his brother. These
  factors have been clearly brought out in the statement of PW1
  and PW2. The fact that these injuries were inflicted by a
  collective offence upon the deceased and the injured witnesses
  is duly demonstrated not only by the medical report, but also
0
  by the statements of the doctors, PW4 and PW14. Thus, the
  prosecution has been able to establish its case.

          18. The contention lastly raised on behalf of the appellants
    is that no single injury has been found to be sufficient in the
E   ordinary course of nature to cause death as per the medical
    evidence. There was no intention on the part of the accused to
    cause death of the deceased. At best, they have only caused
    an injury which was likely to cause death. Therefore, no case
    for an offence under Section 302 IPC is made out and, at best,
F   it could be a case under Section 304 Part II and/or even Section
    326 IPC. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this
    Court in the case of Molu & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(1976)
    4 SCC 362] and Rattan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1988
    Supp. sec 456]. In any case and in the alternative, it is also
G   contended that as per the statement of PW2, accused Gokul
    alone had caused injuries to the deceased and therefore, all
    the other accused persons are entitled to acquittal or at best,
    are liable to be convicted under Section 326 IPC for causing
    injuries to the eye-witnesses, PW1 and PW2 or even to the
H   deceased. This argument, at the first blush, appears to be have
      ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                         547
        PRADESH [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

substance, but when examined in its proper perspective and              A
in light of the settled law. we find it untenable, for the reason
that even in the case of Molu (supra), this Court had noticed
that none of the injuries was on any vital part of the bodies of
the two deceased persons and even injuries upon the skull
appeared to be very superficial. There was nothing to show that         B
the accused intended to cause murder of the deceased persons
deliberately and there was no evidence to show that any of the
accused ordered the killing of the deceased persons or
indicated or in any way expressed a desire to kill the deceased
persons on the spot. It was upon returning this finding on              c
appreciation of evidence that the Court found that there was
only a common intention to assault the deceased, with the
knowledge that the injuries caused to them were likely to cause
death of the deceased and, therefore, the Court permitted
alteration of the offence from that under Section 302 to one            D
under Section 304 Part II, IPC. Also in the case of Rattan Singh
(supra), this Court had found that as per the case of the
prosecution, the injuries on the person of the deceased which
could be attributed to the accused were either on the hands or
feet and at best could have resulted in fractures. None of the
appellants could be convicted for causing such injuries                 E
individually which could make out an offence under Section 302
and, thus, the Court altered the offence.

      19. We are unable to see as to what assistance the
appellants seek to derive from these two judgments. They were           F
judgments on their own facts and in the case of Molu (supra),
as discussed above, the Court had clearly returned a finding
that the accused had no intention to kill the accused, which is
not the circumstance in the case at hand. If there is an intention
to kill and with that intent, injury is caused which is sufficient to   G
cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the offence
would clearly fall within the ambit of para Thirdly of Section 300
IPC and, therefore, would be culpable homicide amounting to
murder. In the present case, the intention on the part of the
accused persons to kill Gokul was manifest as is evident from           H
    548       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A the statements of PW1 and PW2. The cause for having such
  an intent is also proved by the prosecution that according to
  the accused, Gokul and PW1 had burnt their soyabean crops.
  The manner in which all the accused assaulted the deceased
  even after he fell to the ground and the act of continuously
B inflicting blows on the body of the deceased, clearly shows that
  they had a pre-determined mind to kill the deceased at any cost,
  which they did. In the case of State of Haryana v. Shakuntala
  & Ors. [2012 (4) SCALE 526], this Court held :

          "... Reverting back to the present case, it is clear that, as
c         per the case of the prosecution, there were more than five
          persons assembled at the incident. All these nine persons
          were also convicted by the Trial Court and the conviction
          and sentence of six of them has been affirmed by the High
          Court. The members of this assembly had acted in
D         furtherance to the common object and the same object
          was made absolutely clear by the words of accused
          Matadin, when he exhorted all the others to 'finish' the
          deceased persons.

E         27. In other words, the intention and object on t:ie part of
          this group was clear. They had come with the express
          object of killing Manohar Lal and his family members. It
          might have been possible for one to say that they had
          come there not with the intention to commit murder, but only
F         with the object of beating and abusing Manohar Lal and
          others, but in view of the manner in which Matadin exhorted
          all the others and the manner in which they acted thereafter,
          clearly establishes that their intention was not to inflict
          injuries simplicitor. Manohar Lal, admittedly, had fallen on
          the ground. However, the accused still continued inflicting
G
          heavy blows on him and kept on doing so till he breathed
          his last. They did not even spare his wife Sushila and
          inflicted as many as 33 injuries on her body. Where a
          person has the intention to cause injuries simplicitor to
          another, he/she would certainly not inflict 30/33 injuries on
H
      ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                      549
        PRADESH [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    the different parts of the body of the victim, including the    A
    spine. The spine is a very delicate and vital part of the
    human body. It, along with the ribs protects all the vital
    organs of the body, the heart and lungs, etc. Powerful blows
    on these parts of the body can, in normal course, result in
    the death of a person, as has happened in the case before       B
    us. The way in which the crime has been committed
    reflects nothing but sheer brutality. The members of the
    assembly, therefore, were aware that their acts were going
    to result in the death of the deceased. Therefore, we find
    no merit in this contention of the accused also."               c
     20. They even caused injuries to the vital parts of the body
of the deceased, i.e., the skull. As per the medical evidence,
there was incised wound of 5%"x skull thick on left skull region,
which shows the brutality with which the said head injury was
caused to the deceased.                                             D

     21. We may usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in
the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya
& Anr. ((1976) 4 sec 382] wherein the Court was concerned
with somewhat similar circumstances, where a number of              E
accused had caused multiple bodily injuries to the deceased
and it was contended that since none of the injuries was caused
upon any vital part of the body of the deceased, the offence was,
therefore, at best to be altered to an offence under Section 304,
Part II. This contention of the accused had been accepted by        F
the High Court. While disturbing this finding, this Court held as
under:

    "38. Question arose whether in such a case when no
    significant injury had been inflicted on a vital part of the
    body, and the weapons used were ordinary lathis, and the        G
    accused could not be said to have the intention of causing
    death, the offence would be "murder" or merely "culpable
    homicide not amounting to murder". This Court, speaking
    through Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) after explaining
    the comparative scope of and the distinction between            H
    550       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A         Sections 299 and 300, answered the question in these
          terms:

                 "The injuries were not on a vital part of the body and
                 no weapon was used which can be described as
                 specially dangerous. Only lathis were used. It
B
                 cannot, therefore, be said safely that there was an
                 intention to cause the death of Bherun within the first
                 clause of Section 300. At the same time, it is
                 obvious that his hands and legs were smashed and
                 numerous bruises and lacerated wounds were
c                caused. The number of injuries shows that everyone
                 joined in beating him. It is also clear that the
                 assailants aimed at breaking his arms and legs.
                 Looking at the injuries caused to Bherun in
                 furtherance of the common intention of all it is clear
D                that the injuries intended to be caused were
                 sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
                 nature even if it cannot be said that his death was
                 intended. This is sufficient to bring the case within
                 thirdly of Section 300."
E
          39. The ratio of Anda v. State of Rajasthan applies in full
          force to the facts of the present case. Here, a direct causal
          connection between the act of the accused and the death
          was established. The injuries were the direct cause of the
F         death. No secondary factor such as gangrene, tetanus etc.,
          supervened. There was no doubt whatever that the beating
          was premeditated and calculated. Just as in Anda case,
          here also, the aim of the assailants was to smash the arms
          and legs of the deceased, and they succeeded in that
          design, causing no less than 19 injuries, including fractures
G
          of most of the bones of the legs and the arms While in
          Anda case, the sticks used by the assailants were not
          specially dangerous, in the instant case they were unusually
          heavy, lethal weapons. All these acts of the accused were
          preplanned and intentional, which, considered objectively
H
     ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                        551
       PRADESH [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

    in the light of the medical evidence, were sufficient in the      A
    ordinary course of nature to cause deatb. The mere fact
    that the beating was designedly confined by the assailants
    to the legs and arms, or that none of the multiple injuries
    inflicted was individually sufficient in the ordinary course
    of nature to cause death, will not exclude the application        B
    of clause thirdly of Section 300. The expression "bodily
    injury" in clause thirdly includes also its plural, so that the
    clause would cover a case where all the injuries
    intentionally caused by the accused are cumulatively
    sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of           c
    nature, even if r.one of those injuries individually measures
    upto such sufficiency. The sufficiency spoken of in this
    clause, as already noticed, is the high probability of death
    in the ordinary course of nature, and if such sufficiency
    exists and death is caused and the injury causing it is
                                                                      0
    intentional, the case would fall under clause thirdly of
    Section 300. All the conditions which are a prerequisite
    for the applicability of this clause have been established
    and the offence committed by the accused, in the instant
    case was "murder''.
                                                                      E
    40. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that
    the High Court was in error in altering the conviction of the
    accused-respondent from one under Sections 302, 302/
    34, to that under Section 304, Part II of the of the Penal
    Code. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and restore the           F
    order of the trial court convicting the accused (Respondent
    2 herein) for the offence of murder, with a sentence of
    imprisonment for life. Respondent 2, if he is not already in
    jail, shall be arrested and committed to prison to serve out
    the sentence inflicted on him."                                   G

    Reference can also be made to Anda & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan [AIR 1996 SC 148].

    22. The case before us is quite similar to the case of
Rayavarapu Punnayya (supra). The cumulative effect of all the         H
    552     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A injuries was obviously known to each of the accused, i.e., all
  the injuries inflicted were bound to result in the death of the
  deceased which, in fact, they intended. Furthermore, the doctor,
  PW14, had opined that the deceased had died because of
  multiple injuries and fracture on the vital organs, due to shock
B and haemorrhage. In other words, even as per the medical
  evidence, the injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body
  of the deceased.

        23. For these reasons, we are unable to accept the
  contention raised on behalf of the appellants that this is a case
C where the Court should exercise its discretion to alter the
  offence to one under Section 304 Part II or Section 326 IPC
  from that under Section 302 IPC. We also find the submission
  of the learned counsel for the appellants to be without merit that
  accused Gokul alone is liable to be convicted, if at all, under
D Section 302 IPC and all other accused should be acquitted. We
  reject this contention in light of the discussion above and the
  fact that all these accused have been specifically implicated by
  PW1 and PW2, the Investigating Officer, PW26 and the
  medical evidence.
E
        24. Having found no substance in the pleas raised by the
  learned counsel for the appellants, we hereby dismiss the
  appeal.

   R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.