JUDGMENT P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Kottayam under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed on 14-3-59, the murder of his daughter aged only 60 days by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the child by striking her head on the forehead of his wife Sarada and also under S.323, I. P. C. for having caused hurt to Sarada. For the offence of murder the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and under S.323, I. P. C. he has been sentenced to rigorus imprisonment for 3 months. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The appellant is the husband of Sarada PW 1. He married her about 3 years ago. They were living together and they had a child Santhamma by name which was aged only 60 days on the date of the occurrence. PW 3 is the father of PW 1. The accused and his wife had been invited for the pula adiyanthiram of the paternal uncle of PW 3. The function was to be held on 14-3-59 at Keezhampara, a place about 10 miles from Nellianikunnel house, where PW 3 lives. The accused and PW 1 had promised to reach PW 3's house on the morning 13-3-59, but they reached there only late. By that time PW 3 and his wife had already left for Keezhampara. So the accused and PW 1 stayed in PW 3's house for the night. Next day in the afternoon the accused asked his wife, PW 1 to give him five annas for drinking toddy. PW 1 refused to give money. The accused probably got wild and pinched PW 1's ear and later took a long stick (Malayalam) and pulled the hair of PW 1 with the hook on it. PW 2 the sister inlaw of PW 1 who was present there interceded and removed the thotti from PW 1's hair. PW 1 had her child in her lap at that time. The accused then went inside the house and changed the clothes and asked PW 1 to accompany him to go to his house. PW 1 said that she would wait for the return of the parents. The accused insisted that she must start at once. PW 1 had her child in her lap at that time. The accused then went inside the house and changed the clothes and asked PW 1 to accompany him to go to his house. PW 1 said that she would wait for the return of the parents. The accused insisted that she must start at once. PW 1 said that if the accused wanted he may go, but she would return only the next day morning. Suddenly the accused snatched the child from her and started walking through the pathway. PW 1 remonstrated and went and stood in front of the accused and obstructed from proceeding and told the accused that she would bring the child the next morning. On seeing this, the accused suddenly caught the child with its two legs and beat the head of the child on the forehead of PW 1. PW 1 fell down and then the accused threw the child by the side of PW 1 and left the place. It was then 6 p. m. PW 2 removed the child to the verandah of the house, but the child died immediately. There was nobody else in the house. PW 2's husband had gone : to Keezhampara that day and the younger sisters of P. W.1 had gone to some house 2 or 3 furlongs away for delivering the washed clothes, and they returned at about dusk time. There were no houses in the neighbourhood and PWs 1 and 2 did not inform anybody that night. 3. Next day PW 3, the father of PW 1, her mother and her brother returned home. They were informed about the occurrence. Then the father took PW 1 to the Erattupetta police station and PW 1 gave the statement Ext. P1 at 7 p. m. PW 8 the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case and Ext. P9 is the F. I. R. PW 4 the Medical Officer examined PW 1 and issued Ext. P3 the wound certificate. PW 1 had a contusion 3"x21/2" on the middle of the forehead and extending 3/4 " along the upper part of the roof of the nose with ecchymosis into both upper eyelids. The Sub Inspector then proceeded to the scene at 11-45 a. m., on 16-3-59 and held the inquest in the presence of the panchayatdars, and Ext. P10 is the inquest report. The Sub Inspector then proceeded to the scene at 11-45 a. m., on 16-3-59 and held the inquest in the presence of the panchayatdars, and Ext. P10 is the inquest report. PW 9 the Circle Inspector of police also reached the scene of occurrence. The body was then sent to PW 4 the Medical Officer through PW 7, and PW 4 conducted the autopsy at 8 a. m. on 17-3-59, and Ext. P5 is the post mortem certificate. The accused was not available. He was arrested on 19-3-59 at 8-30 a. m. PW 9 the Circle Inspector completed the investigation and laid a charge sheet. 4. The plea of the accused is one of denial. What he stated in Ext. P12, his statement in the committing Magistrate's court was (Malayalam) He did not say anything else. In the Sessions Court he admitted that he had gone with his wife and child to PW 3's house, that he took the child from PW 1 and was proceeding with the child when PW 1 came and obstructed and caught hold of the child. He then says that he did not leave the child, that both of them pulled the child this side and that side and when he left off his hold, PW 1 and the child fell down on the ground and the child died. The accused stated that PW 1 then cried out and PW 3 and his son came running with a knife and so he ran away apprehending danger to himself. 5. The death of the child due to the injury sustained on that day is admitted by the accused. PW 4 found a contusion 21/2" x 21/2" over the middle of the forehead and extending half way down the roof of the nose and there was a depressed fracture 1 1/2" x 1" at the middle of the frontal base. The doctor says the injury could be caused by striking the head of the child against the head of another matured human being. The doctor gives his opinion that the injury was necessarily fatal and the cause of death was cosa due to the fracture of the skull and laceration of the brain as evidenced from the depressed fracture of the frontal bone and laceration to the brain and extravasation of blood over the frontal region. 6. The doctor gives his opinion that the injury was necessarily fatal and the cause of death was cosa due to the fracture of the skull and laceration of the brain as evidenced from the depressed fracture of the frontal bone and laceration to the brain and extravasation of blood over the frontal region. 6. According to the accused, the injuries were not caused as stated by the prosecution, but because of the fall. The truth of the prosecution story depends upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. PW 1 states as to what happened that evening and how the child was snatched from her and her going and obstructing the accused from taking away the child. She then stated that the accused suddenly caught hold of the legs of the child and hit the child on her forehead. PW 2 who was only about 30 feet away from the scene of incident fully corroborates the version given by PW 1. The story spoken to by PWs 1 and 2 is also corroborated by the complaint of PW 1 in Ext. P1 which gives the full details of the incident as spoken to by the witnesses. 7. Strong comment has been made about the inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police. It is true that there was delay. The explanation for the delay had been stated even in the complaint. We must also remember that there / were no male members in the house at the time the incident took place. It is in evidence that their house is in an isolated hilly place and that there are no living houses within 2 furlongs. In that helpless condition there is nothing strange if PWs 1 and 2 did not go and inform other people or the authorities, but waited for the return of their father, PW 3 to give information. 8. The version given by the accused as to how the incident happened is on the face of it incredible. The doctor says that if the child was held tight and 1 persons pulled the child in the opposite directions, then certainly contusion could have been caused at the place where the child was held and that he did not notice any contusion below the head. The doctor says that if the child was held tight and 1 persons pulled the child in the opposite directions, then certainly contusion could have been caused at the place where the child was held and that he did not notice any contusion below the head. When questioned whether the injury on PW 1 could not have been caused by a fall, the doctor said he did not think they would be so caused because there was no abrasion noticed over the contusion. There would normally have been injuries on the other parts of the body also. The doctor also says that the mere fall of a child on the ground will not cause the depressed fracture on the bone underneath. It is therefore unlikely that the injury sustained by the child and PW 1 would have been caused by a fall. 9. Added to this there is the further fact that when the accused was questioned in the committing Magistrate's court he had no case that there was pushing and pulling and that the child sustained the injuries due to the fall. It is therefore clear that the story put forward for the first time in the Sessions Court is an after-thought. If really the injuries were accidentally caused in a fall as set up by the accused then certainly the first instinct of the accused would have been to render some first aid to the child rather than run away from the place. This conduct on the part of the accused is inconsistent with the theory of an accidental fall. In the inquest report it is seen noted that there was discolouration near the ankle and this probabilises the case of the prosecution that the child was caught by the 2 legs and beaten. 10. The accused would have it that he ran away from the scene because PW 3 and his son came with a knife to attack him. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. He did not mention them in Ext. P12. The accused admits that himself and his wife went to PW 3's house. He has no case as to what the special reason was for going there if it was not for puhi adiyanthiram. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. He did not mention them in Ext. P12. The accused admits that himself and his wife went to PW 3's house. He has no case as to what the special reason was for going there if it was not for puhi adiyanthiram. Nothing has been shown as to why we should disbelieve the evidence of PW 3 that there was no male members in the house and that they had gone to Keezhampara for the pula adiyanthiram. 11. We have been taken through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the salient features and the discrepancies in the statement of these witnesses. We are satisfied that the learned Judge was perfectly justified in ignoring the so called discrepancies and accepting their testimony. It was brought to our notice that PW 3 has deliberately lied in the witness box on various matters admitted by PW 1 in evidence. They may be so. But that is no ground for disbelieving the clear and cogent evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The mere fact that they happened to be related is also no ground for rejecting their testimony. 12. It is then contended that the offence if any committed by the accused would not amount to murder and that there was no proof that he had the intention to cause the death of the child. What a man intends can be judged from what be does or says and if he says nothing his act alone must guide us in our decision. It is a general rule and one founded on common sense that we are to presume a roan to do what is the natural consequence of his act. The consequence is so apparent as to leave no doubt of his intention. Law presumes in such a case that he intended the natural and probable consequences of his act or in other words that he intended to inflict bodily injury to the deceased and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Even if there was no intention to cause death, the act would still amount to murder if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the persons to whom the harm is caused. Even if there was no intention to cause death, the act would still amount to murder if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the persons to whom the harm is caused. We have therefore no doubt that the act of the accused in this case amounts to murder and that the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge is correct. 13. In the result the conviction and sentence are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.