S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) SECOND Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 1980, by his judgment dated 20-21981, convicted the appellant for committing the murder of Podiyami Deve on 12. 4-1980 at about 12. 00 noon in village Erwar. He sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant has challenged this conviction and sentence by this appeal. Since the appellant was unrepresented the Registry had provided him with a counsel. Accordingly, the learned counsel and the counsel for the State were heard. ( 2 ) PODIYAMI Payki (P. W. 2) is the sister of the appellant. This witness is the daughter of Podiyami Deve. Podiyami Aiyatu (P. W. 1) is the husband of the deceased. The appellant was also living with them in village Erwar. It is alleged that the appellant assaulted the deceased by Tangiya as a result of which the latter fell down and succumbed to her injuries. A PANCHAYAT was also held about this incident in the village. ( 3 ) THE First Information Report Ex. P. 1 was lodged by Podiyami Aiyatu (P. W. 1) on 14-4-1980 at about 10. 00 A. M. in police station Lohandiguda which is at a distance of about eleven miles. This report was recorded by Head Constable, Bhuveshwarlal (P. W. 9 ). Head Constable, Dhaneshwar (P. W. 6) had gone to village Erwar and after holding an inquest over the dead body, he forwarded the same for postmortem examination. A TANGIYA was also seized by him from the appellant vide memorandum Ex. P. 7 on 14-4-1980. Blood stained and unstained each was also seized from the spot. The dead body of Podiyani Deve was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. ( 4 ) DR. A. K. Tiwari (P. W. 8) on 15-4. 1980 performed the post-mortem examination. He found a lacerated wound at the left temporal area 4 x 4 cm. with fracture of temporal bone. This injury was ante-mortem. The brain matter was found to be coming out of the fractured bony area. In his opinion, she died of coma due to head injury. Dr. Tiwari has stated that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 5 ) THE appellant in his examination denied the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. The brain matter was found to be coming out of the fractured bony area. In his opinion, she died of coma due to head injury. Dr. Tiwari has stated that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 5 ) THE appellant in his examination denied the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. ( 6 ) PODIYANI Payki (P. W. 2) then aged about 18 years is an eye-witness of the incident. Her testimony fully implicates the appellant as the assailant of Podiyami Deve. According to her the appellant had assaulted Podiyami Devi by a TANGIYA. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of Podiyami Pavki (P. W. 2) cannot be accepted because according to her version, the appellant had inflicted two blows on the head and one in the neck of Podiyami Deve which does not find support from the medical evidence. He also contended that she did not narrate about the incident to anyone else. In our opinion, neither of these two contentions can be accepted. The incident had taken place during anytime and at the house, where the presence of Podiyami Payki (P. W. 2) was quite natural. Nothing has been brought out, in the cross-examination of Podiyami Payki (P. W. 2) or of any other witness to show that Podiyami Payki (P. W. 2) will have any reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was her brother. ( 8 ) THE version of Podiyami Payki (P. W. 2) stands corroborated by the version of Madvi Gange (P. W. 3) who had immediately reached the spot and to whom Podiyami payki had given out that the appellant had assaulted her mother. Podiyami Payki (P. W. 2) in her evidence has stated about her having raised shouts and Madvi Gango (P. W. 3) being the first person to have reached the spot. According to Podiyami Payki (P. W: 2), her father Podiyami Aiyatu (P. W. 1) had also come to the spot and to him also she had given out that the appellant held assaulted the mother. Podiyami Aiyatu (P. W. 1) in turn lodged the First Information Report which lands support to this part of the story of the prosecution case. Podiyami Payki (P. W. 2) has been named in that report as an eye witness of the incident. Podiyami Aiyatu (P. W. 1) in turn lodged the First Information Report which lands support to this part of the story of the prosecution case. Podiyami Payki (P. W. 2) has been named in that report as an eye witness of the incident. In these circumstances, to say that Podiyami Payki did not disclose about the incident to anyone is not correct. The discrepancy with regard to the number of injuries, is of no consequence. ( 9 ) THE prosecution had also led evidence to prove the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants before the PANCHAYAT which had assembled on the next day of the incident. This evidence with regard to extra-judicial confession having been made by the appellant has been accepted by the Court below. Podiyami Aiyatu (P. W. 1) is one of such, witnesses to prove the extrajudicial confession. He has adrilitted that the appellant had been brought tied in the PANCHAYAT. He has repeated that version even in the cross-examination. It was also admitted by him, that the Kotwar podiyami Hunga (P. W. 4) that hold the appellant to speak the truth lest he would be taken to the police station. Podiyami Hunga (P. W. 4) has also admitted these facts. In the circumstances, it is doubtful that the said extra-judicial confession was voluntary. h, has therefore, to be rejected ( 10 ) THE other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was as to the offence made out against the appellant. According to the learned counsel there being only one injury, and there being no motive, the offence at best would be one under Section 304 Part-Il of the Indian Penal Code and not that of murder. In our opinion, this submission cannot also be accepted. True it is that no evidence about motive had been led, but the fact remains that the absence with regard to the evidence of motive is of no consequence in this case because the conviction of the appellant rests on the direct testimony of an eye witness. ( 11 ) DR. A. K. Tiwari, (P. N. 8) in his deposition has stated that the injury was sufficier in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. There is no challenge in the cross-examination to that part of the evidence of Dr. Tiwari. ( 11 ) DR. A. K. Tiwari, (P. N. 8) in his deposition has stated that the injury was sufficier in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. There is no challenge in the cross-examination to that part of the evidence of Dr. Tiwari. Apparently the injury was on a vital part of the body and it had resulted into the fracture of temporal bone. The brain matter was also coming out from the fractured portion. That being so Clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code would clearly be attracted. Accordingly, the offence would- be that of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal runs and is hereby dismissed. The appellant be informed accordingly. Appeal dismissed .