Where eye witnesses were consistent and there was no material contradictions in their Evidence s to disbelieve them ,the mere non examination of the doctor who treated the deceased did not adversely effect the prosecution case. Since both the accused participated in their criminal act of assaulting the deceased with lathis with the knowledge that their action was likely to cause death of the deceased, the conviction of the accused under Sections 304, Part - II/34 of IPC could not be interfered with.

Where in a case accused fave blow by a broken bottle and his intention was not to kill the deceased but the the accused died in the absence of proper medical help, conviction of the accused was held to be as justified.

Where in a case assault was made , with spade, on the hand and when the deceased fell down on his neck, and there was no pre- mediation and occurance took place within a spur of the moment, and during quarrel the injuries were caused, it was held that conviction under section 304, Part II was justified.

The Evidence discloses that there was prior quarrel before the incident between the family members of the accused and the deceased and the throwing of brickbat was a result of the said quarrel, not with any prior motive either for assaulting or for killing the deceased, the accused cannot be convicted under section 302 IPC.

But it can be held that the accused was not aware about the cause of his act and there might not be any intention to kill the deceased but it was very much within his knowledge that throwing brickbat on the vital part of the body of the deceased i.e on head was likely to cause the death and therefore, held , that he was liable to be convicted under section 304-Part II of IPC