Culpable homicide under common object replaces murder where intention to kill was not proved, while hurt convictions stand affirmed.

Where the evidence showed that the fatal assault was not carried out with the alleged deadly weapons and the injuries were mainly caused by lathis, the Court found no proof of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The proved facts supported only knowledge that death was likely, so the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. The convictions for grievous hurt and simple hurt were upheld because the eye-witness and injured witness testimony was consistent and minor discrepancies did not weaken the prosecution case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for murder with the aid of common object was sustainable or was liable to be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder; (ii) Whether the convictions for causing grievous hurt and simple hurt required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for murder with the aid of common object was sustainable or was liable to be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence and the medical evidence showed that the fatal assault was not carried out with the deadly weapons said to have been carried, and the injuries found on the deceased were mostly caused by lathis. No injury was shown to have been caused on a vital part so as to establish an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The material on record supported attribution of knowledge that the acts were likely to cause death, but not the higher mental element required for murder.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was set aside and substituted by conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (ii): Whether the convictions for causing grievous hurt and simple hurt required interference.

Analysis: The eye-witnesses, including injured witnesses, gave a consistent account of the assault, and their testimony was accepted as trustworthy. The High Court's appreciation of the evidence on the hurt charges was found free from infirmity, and the minor discrepancies and exaggerations did not undermine the core prosecution case.

Conclusion: The convictions and sentences under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the murder conviction was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the remaining convictions were maintained with modified sentences.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the proved facts and medical evidence do not establish an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but do establish knowledge that death is likely, the offence falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not murder.

---