ORDER K.S. Hegde, J.The appellants were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1957 on his file, for the murder of one Mareppa on the midnight of 31 3 1957 at Benakal village, Bellary District.They are also tried for some other offences alleged to have been committed at the time of the said murder.They were convicted Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Further appellants 1 and 2 (Basappa and Badrigadu respectively) were convicted for an offence Under Section 324, for causing hurt to Mareppa, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.Appellant No. 31 (Chakalabandi Adavappa) was convicted for an of m fence Under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to P.W. 2 (Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.Appellant No. 4 (Phothagadu) was convicted Under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to P.W. 2 (Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.The several sentences imposed on the appellants were made to run concurrently.2. Accused 1 and 2 are cousins.Accused Sections and 4 are brothers and all the accused are related to one another.The case for the prosecution is that in the village of Benakal there were two factions; one of the factions was led by A l (Basarroal by and the opposing faction was led by one Handihal Hanumanthappa; feelings between these two factions were very bitter; the deceased and P. W 2 (Mariswamappa) belonged to the faction of Handihal Hanvrninthappa, whereas all the accused belonged to the faction led by A l. It is further alleged that on the night of 31 3 1957, two haystacks be lonsine to A l and A 3 caught fire; at that time the deceased, P.W. 2 and many others were attending a Baiana performance in Durgamma temple not far from the scene of occurrence; on seeing the haystacks ablaze, the deceased, P.W. 2 and many others went to the scene.With a view to have a nearer view of the burning haystacks, the deceased and P.W. 2 first stood on the roof of A 3' house and later on moved on to the roof of A 3' house which was close to the burning haystacks.The party of the accused suspected that the deceased and P.W. 2 must have set fire to the haystacks and further they were there to enjoy the fun.That first information is marked as Ex P 3 in this case.The police immediately came to the scene or occurrence but by the time they reached the scene,, the body of the deceased was almost burnt.The Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Mysore (P.W. 4 Dr. A. T. Srinivasa Iyengar) who examined the burnt bones and flesh of the deceased, was unable to give1 any opinion as regards the cause of death.So also P.W. 7 (Dr. Y. Padmanabha Rao) who held the post mortem examination was not in a position to speak about the cause of death.P.W. 1 (Dr. B. N. Ramakrishniah) who examined P.W. 2 found' two injuries on his person.One of them was a tapering cut wound 4" x 1/2 which exposed the bones of the elbow and the other was a lacerated wound 1" x W scalp deep situated 2" behind the right ear.He was of the opinion, that the injury on .the elbow was a grievous one.There appears to have been some controversy in the Court below as to whether the bones and flesh recovered by tile Police from the burning haystacks were those On the deceased Mareppa.There is little doubt in this case that Mareppa had died on the night of f51 3 1957 and the bones and flesh recovered by the police were those of the deceased.The trial Court, accepted the prosecution case on this point and its conclusions were not challenged before us.Hence it is unnecessary to go over that ground.The existence of the alleged factions was not disputed before us.The immediate occasion for the attack on the deceased and P.W. 2 according, to the prosecution, is the burning of the haystacks.This is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. & (Saranappa), P.W. 5 (Mari Durgappa).P.W. ft (Talur Mareppa).P.W. 9 (Basappa) and P.W. 1U (Mukkanna).The presence of P.W. 2 at the ' scene of the occurrence cannot be denied.He him , self has sustained injuries.Undoubtedly he b& longs to the faction of the deceased wd he was are enemy of the accused.the first Information laid before the police.It may be remembered that this information was laid before the police almost within three hours after the occurrence and1 that at a place which is about 6 miles from the scene of occurrence.There was little time to concoct a false story.The evidence of P.W. 2 is fully corroborated by P.W. 3 (Saranappa) and P.W. 6 (Talur Mareppa).Their houses are very near the scene of occurrence and hence they are natural witnesses.It is true that P.W. 3 is the brother in law of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 is the maternal uncle of the deceased.Hence undoubtedly they are interested witnesses.As regards the throwing of the body of Mareppa into the burning haystacks, we have the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 5 Mari Durgappa).He urged the we should not place reliance on their evidence, particularly in view of the existence of the factions,It was also urged that though a large number of persons have witnessed the occurrence, no disinterested witness has been examined to support the prosecution case.This is true.But in a factious village, people who are really neutral, will be reluctant to come forward as witnesses to support one or the other side, lest they should invite trouble for themselves.This is a common tendency.The fact that the deceased was killed and P.W. 2 was injured on the night of 31 3 1957 admits of no doubt.The sequel of events as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses appear to be natural.But above all, there is the firs' information (Ex. P 3) which is of utmost importance in this case.According to the evidence of P.W. 1, the injury caused on the elbow of P.W. 2 is a grievous injury.The prosecution evidence shows that the said injury was caused by A 4 (Pothugadu).Hence A 4's conviction Under Section 326 IPC is justified.Some attempt was made to show that the injury in question was a simple injury.Similarly the conviction of A 3 (Adiveppa) Under Section 324 IPC for pausing hurt to P.W. 2 cannot be questioned.Now coming to the murder of the decease ed, we are faced with certain difficulties, as the Doctors were not able to give any definite opinion as regards the cause of his death.To some extent We are left to conjecture as to what was the direct cause of his death.

Cited provisions: Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code