JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Guliya has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for having killed his wife Mst. Lunga on 29-1-1975 with `Sambal'. The first information report Ex. P/4 of the occurrence was lodged by Prashuda (PW 5) at 11.00 p.m., in which it was stated by the informant that his `Dhani' is situated near the `Bera' of the accused Guliya, who lives with his family at `Bera'. When he returned from the village at about 7.00 p.m. his mother informed h'm that Guliya has killed his wife in the afternoon. He also visited the `Dhani' of Guliya where he found Mst. Guliya lying dead and the children were weeping. A case under Section 302, IPC, was registered against the accused and the S.H.O. Zafar Ali (PW 7) proceeded to the spot and conducted the spot investigation. He prepared the site note Ex. P/5 and the site plan Ex. P/6 and`Fird Surat Hal Lash' Ex. P/7. The accused was arrested by him on January 30, 1975. At the time of arrest the S.H.O. found the clothes of the accused having blood stains. While in custody the accused gave information regarding `Sambal', which is Ex. P. 8, and the accused got the `Sambal' recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P/3. The S.H.O. interrogated the witnesses and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was produced against the accused. The accused was tried, after committal, ultimately by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore. On trial the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC, and was sentenced, as aforesaid. Dis-satisfied with the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the accused through Jail. 2. We have heard Shri B. Adwani, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri M.D. Purohit. learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant has been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC. The appellant's conviction has been based on the occular testimony of three witnesses, namely, PW 2, Puriya, PW 3 Chuniya and PW 4 Lakharam. These witnesses are having their `Beras' near the Bera' of the accused. They heard the cries `Mare Re' `Mare Re'. The appellant's conviction has been based on the occular testimony of three witnesses, namely, PW 2, Puriya, PW 3 Chuniya and PW 4 Lakharam. These witnesses are having their `Beras' near the Bera' of the accused. They heard the cries `Mare Re' `Mare Re'. They were thereby attracted to the scene of occurrence and they saw that the accused was chasing his wife and was inflicting blows on her with `Sambal'. As a result of the blows Mst. Lunga felt down near the boundary of the field. The witnesses then visited the place, where Mst. Lunga had fallen. PW 2 Puriya and PW 3 Chuniya have also stated that there used to be quarrel between the accused and his wife and the accused used to beat her. It may be mentioned that the presence of these witnesses is natural, as they are having their own `Beras' nearby the `Beras' of the accused and there are no reasons for discrediting their testimony. Apart from the occular evidence, there is circumstantial evidence of the recovery of the blood stained `Sambal' which has been recovered on the information of the accused and at his instance and the same has been proved by PW 7 Zafar Ali and PW 6 Imam Khan Besides the recovery of the weapon of offence, the accused was found wearing blood stained clothes as is proved by the testimony of Zafar Ali (PW 7) and the Motbir witness Imam Khan (PW6). It is true that the weapon of the offence and the clothes of the accused have not been sent for chemical examination, still in view of the occular evidence offence under Section 302, IPC, is fully established against the accused. The deceased Mst. Lunga had as many as seven injuries on her person. There were as many as six injuries on her head and the seventh injury was on her face. The cause of death was the fracture of skull and the laceration of brain. From the number and nature of injuries on her head, it is clear that the intention of the accused was to kill his wife. 4. Thus, offence under Section 302, IPC, is amply proved. 5. In the result, this appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******