S. S. SHARMA, J, J. ( 1 ) ON this appeal from Jail, the appellant challenges his conviction for the murder of his wife and the sentence of imprisonment for life as has been awarded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 1980. ( 2 ) THE deceased, Supti Bai was the write of the appellant. Sona Deyi (PW. 3): then aged about 20 years, is the sister of the appellant. Sonadhar (PW. 4) is the father of the appellant. Chittu (PW. 5) is the uncle of the appellant. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story is that on 22-4-1980 at about 12 noon, the appellant returned back from the field to his house and told the deceased to serve the meals to him. The deceased, however, told the appellant that he should better cook the food for himself. This resulted in some hot talks between the deceased and the appellant. Thereafter, the deceased went to the tank to take her bath. When she did not return for some time, the appellant went to the tank with an axe. The deceased was at the tank. The appellant inflicted tangia blow on Suptibai as a result of which she fdl down. Even thereafter, the appellant inflicted further blows on her by that tangia. The appellant then lifted the dead body of his wife and took her up to knee-deep water in the tank and placed her there. ( 4 ) SONA Deyi (PW. 3), who had also been taking bath,. had seen the appellant assaulting his wife. Sana Deyi informed about it to her father, Sonadhar (PW. 4), who in turn narrated this incident to some others also. Thereafter, Sonadhar (PW. 4) and others came to the spot where the dead body was. A Panchayat also appears to have been held. ( 5 ) IT was on 23-2. 1980 that the appellant himself went to the Police Station and lodged a report at about 4 15 p. m. That report was recorded by Sub-Inspector, Shukla (PW. 6 ). He then came to the spot and after the necessary formalities forwarded the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination. Some seizures had also been effected However, we need not refer to them as there is nothing on record to show whether any article was sent to the Chemical Analyser. 6 ). He then came to the spot and after the necessary formalities forwarded the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination. Some seizures had also been effected However, we need not refer to them as there is nothing on record to show whether any article was sent to the Chemical Analyser. No report of the Chemical Analyser has also been placed on record. ( 6 ) THE appellant in his examination denied the prosecution story and pleaded innocence Sona Devi (PW. 3) is an eye witness who had seen the appellant inflicting tangia blows on the deceased The distance from the spot where the deceased was assaulted was hardly about 70 paces She has also asserted that the place of the incident was quite visible to her. Nothing has been brought out in her cross-examination to show that she would have any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Her version stands fully corroborated by her immediate conduct inasmuch as she went to Sonadhar (P. W. 4) and informed him about this incident. Sonadhar (P. W. 4) corroborates her version in that behalf. Chittu (PW. 5) had learnt about if from Sonadhar (PW. 4 ). ( 7 ) APART from this there is evidence or Kachta Dai (PW. 2) who had seen the appellant taking the deceased whose clothes had all been soiled with blood towards the tank. This sort of a conduct on the part of the appellant was clearly indicative of his guilty mind. ( 8 ) THERE is other evidence of Lachchoo (PW. 1 ). Sonadhar (PW. 4) and Chittu (PW. 5) to show that in the Panchayat Sona Devi (PW. 3) and Kachea Bai (PW. 2) had stated about this incident. This fact has been admitted by the appellant also in his examination. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid evidence and the circumstances in our opinion, conclusively establish that the appellant was responsible for having caused these injuries to the deceased. Dr. Shekhar lalvankar had performed the postmortem on 25-4-1980 over the dead body of Supti Bai. He had found two incised wounds of different dimensions; one on the right parietal region and the other on the right scapular region. He had also found a lacerated wound on the right mandible below the ear. The right parietal bone was found to be fractured. In his opinion she died as a result of injury no. He had found two incised wounds of different dimensions; one on the right parietal region and the other on the right scapular region. He had also found a lacerated wound on the right mandible below the ear. The right parietal bone was found to be fractured. In his opinion she died as a result of injury no. 1 incised wound on the right parietal region, extra dural and sub-dural hemorrhage leading to shock and ultimate death. In our opinion the gravity of this injury the part which was affected and the resulting consequences clearly go to show that this injury was quite sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Clause Thirdly of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code would, therefore be attracted. In our opinion, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife deserves to be upheld. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant be informed accordingly. Appeal dismissed .