A. M. AHMADI, J. ( 1 ) THE murder in question was committed on the morning of 19/12/1980 while the deceased was proceeding towards Hari- janvas. On the previous day there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The deceased had demanded Rs. 4. 00 from the accused which amount the latter refused to pay. On the next day in broad day light on the main road when the deceased was proceeding to Harijanvas the accused-appellant gave two blows on his head from behind and killed the deceased. The evidence of P. W. 1 Dr. Vekaria shows that he had the following two injuries when he was examined immediately after the inci- dent at about 10. 50 A. M. " (1) Incised wound on right temporal region of head in the size of 5 x 1 x 4. bone deep active bleeding present. (2) Incised wound on right mastbid region of head bone deep size 5 x 1 x 6 active bleeding present". The same is the evidence P. W. 5 Dr. Palanpura. It is therefore obvious that the blows were given with considerable force from behind with a dangerous weapon like an axe. Both the injuries were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused had selected the seat of injuries because these injuries were given from behind and the deceased had no opportunity to save himself. The argument of Mr. Sheth that the offence would tall under sec. 304 Part It of the Indian Penal Code must therefore be rejected. ( 2 ) ON merits there is the direct testimony of three independent eye- witnesses; Tapumia Exhibit 7; Mashri Ramji Exhibit 8: and Mamad Hasan Exhibit 9. All the three witnesses have completely supported the prosecution case and no serious infirmity has been brought out in their cross-examination to doubt their testimony. Their evidence is consistent with the medical evidence. In addition there is the evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the accused on the same day. The axe used for the commission of the crime was found from the Wadi at the instance of the accused and it was stained with human blood of the group of the deceased. Therefore on merits we do not see any substance in this appeal. ( 3 ) HOWEVER on the question of sentence we admit this appeal. Mr. The axe used for the commission of the crime was found from the Wadi at the instance of the accused and it was stained with human blood of the group of the deceased. Therefore on merits we do not see any substance in this appeal. ( 3 ) HOWEVER on the question of sentence we admit this appeal. Mr. M. A. Trivedi the learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has however sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 0 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Of late we have been corning across cases where while convicting the accused for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life the Court also imposes a sentence of fine and directs the accused to suffer a further term of imprisonment in default of fine. Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code provides that who- ever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. We do not know if the Court imposes a sentence of fine even in cases where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life for the commission of murder because of the use of the conjunction and between the expressionsimprisonment for life and shall also liable to fine. If that be so we would like to make it clear that the section does not make it imperative to impose a sentence of fine where an accused is convicted under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 4 ) A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State v. Pandu- rang Shinde 1956 Cri. L J. 1306 (A. I. R. 1956 Bombay 711) while dealing with a similar order observed in paragraph 8 of the judgment as under :-"then remains the question of sentence As we have pointed out earlier the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to suffer transportation for life and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 500. It is difficult to appreciate why the learned Sessions Judge in a case where he sentenced the accused for an offence of murder should have imposed a sentence of fine. 500. It is difficult to appreciate why the learned Sessions Judge in a case where he sentenced the accused for an offence of murder should have imposed a sentence of fine. The offence was not one which was committed for pecuniary gain. The sentence of fine for an offence of murder appears to be wholly inapposite". The same view was expressed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dhanno khan v. The State 1957 Cri. L. J. 498 (A. I. R. 1957 Allahabad 317) where the conviction was under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 Dealing with the contention that the order of fine was not justified the Court after reproducing sec. 302 of the Indian Panel Code proceeded to observe as under:"the Code confers a discretion on the Court to sentence an accused as it thinks proper. In a murder case the sentence of death was till before the amendment held by Courts to be the normal sentence and when Courts award the lesser penalty namely transportation for life or imprisonment for life they had to give reason for imposing the lesser penalty. Whether there should be a sentence of fine also is for the Court to determine Nevertheless when a Court imposes a sentence of fine also under sec. 302 I. P. C. then obviously the Court has got to give reasons why a sentence of fine also was being imposed for the simple reason that a sentence of fine over and above the substantive sentence is deemed to be in excess thereof and it has always been thought desirable to give reasons for imposing the excess penalty so to speak". Their Lordships then referred to Pandurang Shindes case (supra) and approved of the observations made therein. ( 5 ) IN the instant case also there was no justification for directing the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1 0 default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. We therefore set aside that part of the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In other words we confirm the conviction of the accused under sec. 1 0 default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. We therefore set aside that part of the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In other words we confirm the conviction of the accused under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life but we set aside the sentence of fine and the order of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. ( 6 ) SUBJECT to the above modification in the order of sentence the appeal is summarily dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .