JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by accused Bheru alias Bheriya is directed against his conviction under Section 302, IPC and a sentence if imprisonment for life and also his conviction under Section 326, IPC and sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer vide judgment dated 13th June, 1975. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that there was some dispute between the accused and deceased Hira Lal with regard to a public temple. On 16th September, 1974, in the morning at about 7.30 or 7.45 a m. accused Bheron and one Mangia went on cycle to the hotel of Lala Haridas. Bheron and Mangia took tea and then both of them went inside the hotel and ordered for two more cups of tea. The prosecution case further is that at that time Hiralal (deceased) himself passed through the way. Mangiya came out of the hotel and had some talk with Hiralal. Hira Lal (deceased) left his cow in the herd of cows. At this time accused Bheron came cut of the hotel and inflicted axe blow on the left shoulder of Hiralal and inflicted another blow on the head. Hiralal, as a result of those injuries, fell down and the accused then inflicted two more blows by the axe on the legs of Hiralal. Jagdish PW/2 who saw this incident tried to intervene as he was of the locality of the accused. Jagdish told the accused as to what he was doing and, on this, the accused gave one axe blow on the left leg of Jagdish and another blow on his chest. Gulab Nath PW/15, Tejmal PW/14, Motilal PW/11 and the hotelwala also reached on the spot. Accused Bheron them ran away and while running he took the axe with him, but left his transistor and the cycle on the spot. Hiralal injured was taken to the hospital at Kishangarh in a tonga and Jagdish was also taken to the hospital after some time. Tejmal PW/14 who was an eye-witness of the incident went to the Police Station, Kishangarh and lodged a report which was recorded by the Head Constable Jagpal (PW/23 . The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kishangarh PW/21 and B.K. Godika also received telephonic message regarding the incident. The Dy. Superintendent of Police reached the Police Station where Ex. P/25 FIR had already been recorded. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kishangarh PW/21 and B.K. Godika also received telephonic message regarding the incident. The Dy. Superintendent of Police reached the Police Station where Ex. P/25 FIR had already been recorded. The Dy. S.P. then went to Sardul School where the accused was employed as a peon. The accused was arrested and at that time he was wearing white dhoti Ex. 9 and white kurta Ex 10, which were blood stained. Corpse were taken in possession by the Dy. S.P. vide Ex. Pill. The Dy. S.P. then went on the spot and recovered the transistor. He prepared a site-plan and also took in possession the blood-stained earth. Photographs of the site were also taken. 3. Dr. G.C. Sarda (PW/7), Medical Officer incharge Y.N. Hospital, Kishangarh examined external injuries of Hiralalat 8.30 a.m. He prepared the injury report Ex. P/6. He also examined the injuries of Jagdish and prepared his injury report vide Ex. P/7. After giving first-aid to Hiralal and dressing the wounds, Dr. Sarda advised the relatives of Hiralal to take him to Ajmer Hospital as the patient was in a serious condition. Jagdish was also referred to Ajmer hospital for treatment. Hiralal was then brought to AN Hospital, Ajmer and was admitted as an indoor patient. Dr. Aswani Kumar PW/18 took X-ray of Hiralal for skull bones. He was then admitted in the male surgical ward at 10.10 a.m. and he died at 11.45 a.m. Jagdish being a railway employee was referred to the Railway Hospital, Ajmer. The Doctor at the Railway Hospital directed him to be taken to J.L.N. Hospital Ajmer, as it was a medico-legal case. After usual investigation of the case the accused was challenged under Sections 302 and 307, IPC. The accused was sent to the Sessions Court for trial. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under sections 302 and 307, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 23 witnesses in all. The accused was sent to the Sessions Court for trial. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under sections 302 and 307, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 23 witnesses in all. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Totally denied the prosecution case and took the stand that at the relevant time he was in the school.He also examined for witnesses DW 1 Gopal Singh, DW/2 Peerulal, DW/2 Kisturmal Kothari, DW/4 Bhanwar Lal The learned Sessions Judge after going through the record of the case found the accused guilty of committing murder of Hiralal and, as such, convicted him under Section 302, IPC. As regards the injuries inflicted by the accused to Jagdish, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 326, IPC and, as such, convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner indicated above. 4. We have thoroughly perused the record and have gone through the statements of all the eye-witnesses, medical evidence and other evidence relevant to the case.There is evidence of Jagdish Prasad PW/2, according to whom he had gone to worship of Ganeshji and Shiviji and stayed in the way at the hotel of Lala Hari Das for tea. At that time Bheron and Mangiya also went to the hotel. First they took tea out side and thereafter both of them went inside the hotel and ordered for two more cups of tea. Then Mangiya came out. Meanwhile, Hira Lal (deceased) came from the by-pass with a cow. Hira Lal left his cow in a head of cattle. At that time, accused Bheron came out of the hot,I and on reaching near Hira La1 inflicted a blow by an axe on his left shoulder. The accused them gave another blow on head of Hiralal. On sustaining these injuries, Hiralal fell down. Thereafter the accused gave two more blows by the axe on legs of Hiralal. He has further stated that thinking that Bheron belonged to his locality he would be able to make him understand, went near Bheron and told him as to what he was doing Bheron then inflicted an axe blow on the leg of the witness an another axe-blow on his chest. Gulab Nath and Hari Das also reached on the spot. He has further stated that thinking that Bheron belonged to his locality he would be able to make him understand, went near Bheron and told him as to what he was doing Bheron then inflicted an axe blow on the leg of the witness an another axe-blow on his chest. Gulab Nath and Hari Das also reached on the spot. The accused then run away with the axe leaving cycle and transistor on the spot. Jagdish PW/2 has further narrated that he was first taken to the hospital at Kishangara and subsequently to Ajmer. Mr Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant has tried to assail the statement of this witness on the ground that he was a chance witness and the explanation given by the accused that he was sick for about two months cannot be believed without production of the document in support of such leave We do not find any force in this contention. Jagdish Prasad is a witnesses whose presence on the spot is proved beyond any manner of doubt as the accused had inflicted axe blows on his leg and chest. His presence on the spot is further corroborated by the statements of Tejmal PW/14 and Motilal PW/ 11 and another Tejmal PW/5 and other prosecution witnesses. Though, the defence counsel in cross, examination has tried to put a question regarding the enmity of these witnesses with the accused, but the same has been flatly denied by this witness. The defence has not brought out any material on record is prove any enmity or axe to grind against the accused. His statement read as a whole is a statement given in forth right and straight away manner and in our opinion, he is a truthful witness and there cannot be any reason to disbelieve his statement He is a person of the locality of the accused and when tried to make the accused understand, he was injuried by the accused by the axe We have also seen the statements of PW/3 Tejmal, PW. 11 Moti Lal, PW/14 Tejmal and PW/16 Haridas who also corroborated the prosecution story in material particulars Out of the aforesaid witnesses PW/5 Tejmal. PW/1l Moti Lal and PW/i4 another Tejmal are the eye-witnesses. The statements of these witnesses have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge and we do not find any reason to take a different view. 11 Moti Lal, PW/14 Tejmal and PW/16 Haridas who also corroborated the prosecution story in material particulars Out of the aforesaid witnesses PW/5 Tejmal. PW/1l Moti Lal and PW/i4 another Tejmal are the eye-witnesses. The statements of these witnesses have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge and we do not find any reason to take a different view. The statements of the above eye-witnesses are also supported by the medical evidence of PW/l Dr. B.L. Gupta. He had examined the injuries of Hira Lal and in his opinion the following injuries were found on the body of Hira Lal: 1. Condition of subject:- Average built, rigor mortis present, body not decomposed. 2. Wounds (i) Incised wound 5"x 3/4" x brain deep in the parietal region of scalp 2" to the right of midline of skull. The wound was extending ante ro-potterinarly and parallel to the midline of Skull. (ii) Incised wound 3"x 3/4" x bone deep on the left shoulder at the level of outer end of left collar bone. (iii) Incised herisertal wound 2"x ⅓" x ⅙" on the front and upper one third of left thigh. (iv) Incised verticle wound 4"x 1" x bone deep of the inner aspact of right leg in its upper one-third. II CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD (i) Membrances - Brain membrances crushed correspending to injury No. 1 mentioned above. (ii) Brain and spinal cord:- Clotted blood covering whole of the right parietal zone of brain incised wound of brain 4 "x 1/2" x 1". The wound was corresponding injury No. 1 mentioned above. Muscles, bones and joints: Fracture - (i) Fracture of skull cap corresponding to injury No. 1 (ii) There was scratching of bone corresponding to injury No. 2 left achremion process of scapula. (ii) There was scratching of bone corresponding to injury No. 4 upper one third of right tibia". 5. According to Dr. Gupta injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As regards the other injuries the Doctor has given an opinion that the remaining injuries collectively may cause death, but were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. According to Dr. Gupta injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As regards the other injuries the Doctor has given an opinion that the remaining injuries collectively may cause death, but were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that it was the mistake of the Doctor at Kishangarh to have sent the injured Hiralal to Ajmer and due to this lapse Hira Lal died and such, the accused cannot be held responsible for causing the death of Hiralal and he cannot be convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. We do not find any force in this contention. It is mentioned in Explanation II of Section 299 itself that where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and satisfactory treatment the death might have been prevented. In the present case, Dr. Gupta PW/1 has stated in clear terms that the injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A perusal of the nature of the first injury clearly shows that it is an incised wound 5"x 3/4" x brain deep in the parietal region of scalp 2" to the right of mid line of skull. There can be no manner of doubt that in the present case the accused had the intention of causing this bodily injury which was likely to cause death of Hira Lal. The case against the accused is, thus proved to the hilt and beyond any manner of doubt that he inflicted the injuries by an axe on the head and other portions of the body of Hira Lal which resulted into his death. Mr. Bhandari placed reliance on Shankar v. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 1532 and con ended that even if it be held that the accused had inflicted injuries by axe, the occurrence had taken place without any premeditation and the accused had no intention to cause any particular injury on the vital part and at the most he can be said to have knowledge that death might be caused from his act. It is, thus, contended that the conviction of the accused-appellant should be changed from Section 302 to 304-II, IPC. It is, thus, contended that the conviction of the accused-appellant should be changed from Section 302 to 304-II, IPC. We find no force in this contention. In the above case of the Supreme Court, cited by Mr. Bhandari, it was a case where the deceased along with the accused and other had just finished their meals. In the circumstances of that case, the Court took the view that the appellant had no intention of causing the particular injury on the vital part. In the case before us, the accused was armed with an axe and after seeing Hiralal he had inflicted several injuries by axe one of which was inflicted on the parietal region with fill force. The injury, as already mentioned by us, was in the parietal region of scalp and was 5"x 3/4" in dimension and was brain deep. 6. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused had no intention to cause a bodily injury which might not result into the death of Hira Lal. 7. In the result, we do not find any force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******