Judgment B.P.Sinha, J. 1. Appellant Sohan Manjhi stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Kutlu Sikalkar. He was a snake-charmer by profession. 2. The prosecution case was that Kutlu Sikalkar along with his wife Surpi Sikalkar (P. W. 8) and three small children had come to village Heven, Police Station Nimdih in the district of Singhbhum on a Thursday before the date of occurrence for the purpose of begging by showing snake charming performance. On 11-5-1965, which was a Tuesday, in the morning, Sohan Manihi took Kutlu Sikalkar, his wife and children to his house and gave them Handia (liquor) to drink. While they were drinking Handia, Sohan Manihi proposed that one daughter of the victim should cultivate friendship with his daughter. He further proposed that he would keep the wife of the victim with himself. Kutlu Sikalkar told his wife Surpi Sikalkar (P. W. 8), "Sohan Manjhi wants to keep you." On this, Surpi Sikalkar replied that Sohan Manihi was neither his castcman nor relation and, as such, who he was to keep her. After taking Handia, Kutlu Sikalkar along with his family members came back to the mango tree where they were living. Sohan Manihi also came following them with a small dunta about two cubits in length. Without speaking anything, Sohan Manjhi save dunta blows to Kutlu Sikalkar which hit him on the right side of the head and other parts of the body. Hulla was raised. Several persons arrived and witnessed the occurrence. As a result of the iniuries received. Kutlu Sikalkar died at the spot. Surpi Sikalkar informed the Mukhia and the Chaukidar who came and saw the dead body. Mukhia Madan Manjhi (P. W. 9) sent Surpi Sikalkar along with the Chaukidar to Nimdih Police Station, where her fardbeyan was recorded that very day at about 4 p. m. by the Officer-in-charge Bharat Dasandhi (P. W. 11). On the basis of that fardbeyan, formal F. I. R. was drawn up at Chandil Police station. The Offlcer-in-charge (P. W. 11) started for the place of occurrence reaching there at 8-30 p. m. He held inquest on the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. He examined witnesses and after completing investigation, submitted chargesheet against this appellant who was put on trial. 3. The Offlcer-in-charge (P. W. 11) started for the place of occurrence reaching there at 8-30 p. m. He held inquest on the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. He examined witnesses and after completing investigation, submitted chargesheet against this appellant who was put on trial. 3. The defence was that the accused did not commit any offence and that he was falsely implicated at the instance of other persons. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution case well proved and, consequently, convicted and sentenced the accused, as mentioned above. 5. This appeal has been filed from Jail and Mr. Rajeshwar Yajnik has appeared as Amicus Curiae. 6. The fact that Kutlu Sikalkar died as a result of the injuries sustained by him on 11-5-1965 in the morning in village Heven has not been challenged and it is proved by the testimony of the witnesses who have figured as eye witnesses to the occurrence. The Officer-in-charge (P. W. 11) on reaching the place of occurrence saw the dead body of Kutlu Sikalkar with iniuries thereon. On post-mortem examination, the doctor Debendra Jha (P. W. 2) on dissection found ante mortem wounds on the dead body. There were fractures of the ribs on both sides. Pleura was perforated by the ribs and the lung was lacerated. The doctor opined that the death was caused by the fracture of the ribs which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He was further of the opinion that the injuries could be caused by lathi. As the body was in a state of decomposition, the doctor could not detect marks of other injuries on the skin. He has stated that the death took place within 48 hours of the time of post-mortem examination which fits in with the time of occurrence, as stated by the witnesses for the prosecution. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that Kutlu Sikalkar was assaulted on 11-5-1965 in village Heven with the blunt weapon like lathi as a result of which he died on the spot. 7. The next question that requires consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was this appellant who was responsible for causing those injuries which resulted in the death of Kutlu Sikalkar. The prosecution has examined four persons as eye witnesses to the occurrence. 7. The next question that requires consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was this appellant who was responsible for causing those injuries which resulted in the death of Kutlu Sikalkar. The prosecution has examined four persons as eye witnesses to the occurrence. They are Sukhu Manjhi (P. W. 1), Debendra Jha (P. W. 2), Parbati Manjhiain (P. W. 3) and Mangliu Manjhiain (P. W. 4). All these witnesses have consistently spoken that they saw the appellant assaulting Kutlu Sikalkar with dunta. After discussing the evidence of prosecution witnesses their Lordships proceeded] 8. On a consideration of the entire evidence, I have no doubt in holding that it was this appellant who had assaulted Kutlu Sikalkar on 11-5-1965 in the morning with dunta which resulted in his death at the spot. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that, at any rate, the appellant is protected by the general exception provided under Sections 85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code. This argument has been advanced on the ground that the appellant had taken liquor and, therefore, if under the influence of that liquor, he did any act, he is protected by these Sections. There is no force in this contention. There is no material on the record to show that the appellant was under the influence of liquor at the time he committed the offence and no suggestion to this effect was made to any of the witnesses during their cross-examination. The appellant himself has not said anything in this connection in his statement under Sec.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, there is no basis for this submission. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 10. Lastly, it has been submitted that at any rate, the offence committed would come under Sec.304 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Sec.302. There is no force in this contention as the appellant had assaulted Kutlu Sikalkar with dunta in such a way that the ribs of both sides were broken, as a result of which the pleura was perforated and the lung was lacerated. The doctor has opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. In view of the evidence on record, it must be held that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor has opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. In view of the evidence on record, it must be held that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. That being so, the offence is murder under Sec.300 (thirdly). 11. The result is that the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant are affirmed. Bahadur, J. 12 I agree.