JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by accused Surat Singh is directed against the judgement of learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated October 4, 1979, whereby he has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on June 3, 1978 at about 6.45 P.M. Mst. Sheela (deceased) wife of Manjeet Singh, P.W. 1, had gone to fetch water from a well, accused Surat Singh who was brother-in-law of Mst. Sheela being younger brother of Manjeet Singh, wanted Mst. Sheela to live with him as his wife. Mst, Sheela was not willing to live with the accused and as such the accused Surat Singh inflicted a knife blow in the stomach of the deceased and went away. P.W. 1 Manjeet Singh and his father Hardatt P.W. 6 have been produced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. According to them when they reached near Mst. Sheela, they were told that accused Surat Singh had inflicted a knife blow on the body of Sheela and as such Mst. Sheela was taken to Govindgarh Hospital for treatment. She was clinically examined by Dr. S.K. Sharma, P.W. 11 and also recorded her dying declaration, Ex. P. 14 As the condition of Mst. Sheela was precarious, she was advised to be taken to Government Hospital, Alwar. Mst. Sheela was as such taken to Government Hospital, Alwar and admitted at about 2 P.M. in the night. Ms. Sheela succumbed to the injuries on June 4, 1978 in the morning at about 7 A.M. The Medical Jurist, Alwar informed the police who thereafter recorded the statement of Manjeet Singh P.W. 1, on the basis of which FIR Ex. P. 11 was noted down. The police thereafter investigated the case and challaned the accused under Section 302 PC in the Court of Addl Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg. Learned Magistrate Committed the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions. The accused was read over charge under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses. The accused in his explanation under Section 313 Cr. P.C. stated that he was not present in the village on the date of occurrence and had gone to Kishagarh (Alwar) two days prior to the incident. He further stated that he had not killed Sheelabai. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses. The accused in his explanation under Section 313 Cr. P.C. stated that he was not present in the village on the date of occurrence and had gone to Kishagarh (Alwar) two days prior to the incident. He further stated that he had not killed Sheelabai. the witnesses are tiers and he came to know about the death of his sister-in-law. Smt. Sheela only when he was arrested by the police at Kishangarh (Alwar). In the end he stated that he had given his land to his brother Manjeet Singh and sister-in-law Sheela and both of them wan ed to grab the aforesaid land and on that account they were inimical towards him He further stated that relations between his brother and sister-in-law Sheela were strained as Mst. Sheela was elder to his brother in age. His brother Manjeet Singh on that account wanted to leave Sheela and on this account he has been falsely implicated at the asking of Mst. Sheela. The accused also exaimned three witnesses in defence. 3. Learned Sessisons Judge after discussing the entire evidence he that the accused had an intention to kill Mst. Sheela and on that account he inflicted a knife blow which resulted into her death of Mst, Sheela. In view of the above finding the accused was convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated above. 4. It was contended by Mr. Tribrewal, learned counsel for the accused-appellant that from the statement of P.W. 1 Manjeet Singh it is proved that Mst. Sheela was elder in age to Manjeet Singh by three or four years. From the statement of P,W. 6 Hardatt Singh, father of accused Surat Singh, it is proved that the age of the accused at the time of incident was near about 16-17 years. It is thus contended that it is proved on record from the evidence itself ghat there was a difference of about 8 to 10 years in the age of the accused and Mst. Sheela (deceased). It is further argued that the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case had no intention to cause death of Mst. Sheela as no prior enmity has been established on record by the prosecution. The accused cannot be said to have any intention causing bodily injury in the stomach of Mst. Sheela. Sheela (deceased). It is further argued that the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case had no intention to cause death of Mst. Sheela as no prior enmity has been established on record by the prosecution. The accused cannot be said to have any intention causing bodily injury in the stomach of Mst. Sheela. It is contended that it was mere coincidence that the blow by the knife fell on vital part of Mst, Sheela which resulted into her death and as such the case does not go beyond Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Reliance in support of the argument is placed on Kulwant Rai v. The State of Punjab: AIR 1982 SC 126 . 5. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor that it has been proved by the prosecution evidence beyond any manner of doubt that the accused inflicted the fatal blow with an intention to cause that bodily injury in the stomach and is fully responsible for his act. It is further submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that Dr. R.K. Agrawal, P.W. 10, who conducted the autopsy has clearly stated that injury in the stomach was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. We have given our careful consideration to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully perused the record. 7. A dying declaration of Mst. Sheela was recorded on June 3, 1978 by Dr. S.K. Sharma, P.W. 11, vide Ex. P. 14. Mst Sheela in that statement clearly stated that she was returning back after fetching water and the accused came in-front of her and inflicted a knife blow in her stomach. The accused also chased Mst. Sheela thereafter. Mst. Sheela threw her earthen pot and ran towards her house. Then she called her husband. The person who inflicted the knife blow was Surat Singh who was brother-in-law (Dever). At that time of inflicting knife blow the accused had said he would keep her with him and would not permit her to live in the house of Manjeet Singh. The above dying declaration is corroborated by the statements of P.W. 1 Manjeel Singh and P W. 6 Hardatt Singh. According to Manjeet Singh Sheela was married to him about five years back Sheela had two children. The above dying declaration is corroborated by the statements of P.W. 1 Manjeel Singh and P W. 6 Hardatt Singh. According to Manjeet Singh Sheela was married to him about five years back Sheela had two children. He could not say what was the age of Mst. Sheela at the time of marriage Sheela was elder to him by three or four years. Accused Surat Singh is younger to him by four years. Accused Surat Singh bad illicit relation with Mst. Sheelabai and he had a suspicion about it. He was having a grudge against the accused Surat Singh on that account. Surat Singh accused on that account had left the house and had gone towards Punjab for service. Accused had returned back 8 or 10 days prior to the date of incident. At the time of incident his father was inside the house and his father did not see the actual incident with his own eyes. Ex P. 1 does not contain the fact of giving a blow by list in the stomach of Mst. Sheela. He further stated that at the time of incident there was slight darkness. He had seen the occurrence while standing at his house. There was no other house in between the well and his own house He further stated that when some exchange of words was going on between the accused and Mst. Sheela, he had gone inside the h sure to call his father. When he came out of the house along with his father then they saw the accused running way and they had seen his back. He denied the suggestion that he had not s.en the incident and was telling the name of the accused only by a conjecture. Mst. Sheela did not utter a word after the incident and only gave her dying declaration to the Doctor. The above statement is also supported by the statement of P.W. 6, Hardatt Singh in material particulars, FIR was recorded at the police station, Seekari, District Bharatpur on June, 5 1978 at 9.30 A.M. after the death of Mst Sheela. The occular evidence also finds support from the declearation, Ex P. 14, post-mortem report, Ex. P. 12, and the statement of Dr. R.K. Agrawal, P.W. 10. The occular evidence also finds support from the declearation, Ex P. 14, post-mortem report, Ex. P. 12, and the statement of Dr. R.K. Agrawal, P.W. 10. Learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the above evidence and we are also fully convinced from the above mentioned occular evidence, F.I.R. and the post-mortem report and the dying declaration Ex. P. 14 that the incident look place as stated by the prosecution witnesses and it was the accused Surat Singh who inflicted knife injury in the stomach of Smt Sheela on the fateful day resulting into the death of Mst. Sheela. 8. The only point which now remains to be considered is to what offence has been committed by the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case. From a perusal of the dying declaration, Ex. P. 14, given by Mst. Sheela it is clear that the accused wanted to keep Mst. Sheela with him and had told her that he would not permit to live in the house of Manjeet. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused had no intention to inflict the knife blow in the stomach of Mst, Sheela. It is not a case where the blow was given by the accused which accidentally fell into the stomach. He had an intention that he was inflicting such fatal bodily injury in a vital part of the deceased, According to the statement of Dr. Agrawal, it is clearly proved that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The case clearly falls within clause 3 of Section 300 I.P.C. as it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Mst. Sheela. The case in our view does not fall under any of the exceptions laid down under Section 300 IPC. We do not find any force in the contention of Mr. Tibrewal that the accused had neither any intention nor knowledge to inflict the fatal blow in the stomach of Mst. Sheela. In Kulwant Raja's case relied upon by Mr. Tibrewal it was conceded from the side of the prosecution that part I of Section 300 I.P.C. was not attracted because it could not be said that the accused had the intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Sheela. In Kulwant Raja's case relied upon by Mr. Tibrewal it was conceded from the side of the prosecution that part I of Section 300 I.P.C. was not attracted because it could not be said that the accused had the intention to commit the murder of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of that case it was found that there was an altercation. There was no premeditation. It was something like hit and run and in those circumstances it was laid down that part B of Section 300 IPC would not be attracted because it could not be said that accused intended to inflict that particular injury which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. 9. As already discussed by us above in the case before us there are no circumstances to take the view that the accused did not intend to inflict the fatal injury i.e. knife blow in the stomach. We find support in our above view in Narayan Satheesorn alias Baboo v. State of Kerala: 1977(4) SCC 301 , Pappu alias Baijnath v. The State of U.P.: 1879 (I) SCC 130 and Rajender Singh v. State of Punjab: 1979(1) SCC 135 . 10. In view of these circumstances we find no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******