S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) IN Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1981, Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, by his judgment dated 30-3-1981 convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal is against that conviction and sentence. The appellant being unrepresented, counsel was provided to him by the Registry. ( 2 ) DECEASED Sanjay Kumar is the son of Deendayal (P. W. l ). The deceased used to run a canteen and cycle-stand in the premises of Mahavir talkies, Hoshangabad. One Mangu is the elder brother of appellant Chippa. This Mangu was employed in the canteen of deceased Sanjay Kumar. It is said that Sanjay Kumar had removed Mangu from service a week or so before this incident. In the afternoon of 2-9-1980 the appellant and his. brother Mangu had quarreled with deceased Sanjay Kumar at the Mahavir talkies on payment of wages due to Mangu. Deceased Sanjay Kumar had told them that the payment of the wages could be made only when his elder brother, who had maintained the accounts, comes to the shop. The appellant, however, insisted for immediate payment. It is said that appellant. Chippa had left with a threat to deceased Sanjay Kumar. ( 3 ) ON the same day, deceased Sanjav Kumar along with his father Deendayal (P. W. l) left the canteen after the interval of the second show was over, for their house. When deceased Sanjay and his father Deendayal had approached near Morchhali Chouk, the appellant whipped out a knife and stabbed Sanjay Kumar in his stomach. Thereafter the appellant fled away. ( 4 ) DEENDAYAL (P. W. 1) had cried for help. He, however, went towards Itwara Chouk from where he could call his servant Mukesh (P. W. 2) who was still at the cycle stand in Mahavir talkies. Mukesh, having heard the call reached the Itwara Chouk. Thereafter Sanjay was taken by Deendayal and Mukesh to the civil hospital. ( 5 ) DR. Syd Muslim Akhtar (P. W. 7) examined the injure and informed the police about it through the compounder. Head Constable Gokul Prasad (P. W. 8) recorded that information at 11. 30 P. M. in the Roznarncha wherein there was a mention about the Sanjay having been stabbed by Chippa. ( 5 ) DR. Syd Muslim Akhtar (P. W. 7) examined the injure and informed the police about it through the compounder. Head Constable Gokul Prasad (P. W. 8) recorded that information at 11. 30 P. M. in the Roznarncha wherein there was a mention about the Sanjay having been stabbed by Chippa. Since the Station House Officer was unwell, this Head Constable on the instructions of the Station House Officer reached the hospital. ( 6 ) THE Head Constable made a query from the doctor vide memorandum Ext. P. 9 whether Sanjay Kumar was in a fit condition to give statement. The doctor reported about Sanjay Kumar being conscious and able to give the statement. After obtaining that information, the Head Constable recorded the oral report Ex. P. 1 of injured Sanjay Kumar and obtained his thumb impression as he was not in a position to affix his signatures. ( 7 ) DR. Syed Muslim Akhtar (P. W. 7) had found an incised wound I lateral to mid-line on left side lateral to umbilicus, transverse in position measuring i" x 4 cavity deep with small loop of intestine with omentum coming out from the wound. The patient had already been admitted in the ward. He has stated that an operation was also performed by the Civil Surgeon Dr. B. N. Surange (PW. 10) However, Sanjay Kumar died at 1. 50 A. M. of 3-9-1980, ( 8 ) DR. Nurul Hasan (PW. 11) performed the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Sanjay Kumar. He in his evidence and the post mortem report has described the injury in details. In his opinion, the internal injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Surange (PW. 10) has also opined that the injury was of serious type and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 9 ) THE appellant in his examination admitted that Mangu who was his brother was employed in the canteen of the Mahavir talkies. He, however, denied to have assaulted the deceased and pleaded alibi by stating that he had been to Bhopal. He did not examine any witness in defense. ( 10 ) THE conviction of the appellant rests on the direct testimony of Deendayal (PW. 1) and the dying declaration of deceased Sanjay Kumar. Deendayal (PW. He, however, denied to have assaulted the deceased and pleaded alibi by stating that he had been to Bhopal. He did not examine any witness in defense. ( 10 ) THE conviction of the appellant rests on the direct testimony of Deendayal (PW. 1) and the dying declaration of deceased Sanjay Kumar. Deendayal (PW. 1) was with his son Sanjay Kumar at the time when this incident had occurred. They had been returning back from the canteen in the Mahavir talkies. It has come in the evidence that near the place of incident there was an electric pole and so there was light. The appellant was known to these people from before. There is no reason why Should not Deendayal (PW. 1) and his son identify the appellant. The version of Deendayal stands corroborated by Mukesh (PW. 2) who has stated that Deendayal had called out telling him that Chippa had stabbed Sanjay. ( 11 ) SANJAY Kumar also in his report Ex. P. 1 had clearly named the appellant as his assailant. At the time when this dying declaration was recorded Sanjay was conscious and as certified by the doctor in a fit condition. There is no reason to reject the dying declaration either. Apart from this, the prosecution story gets further support from the fact that from the police station an information was sent to the police wherein appellant had specifically been named as the person who had stabbed Sanjay Kumar. This information was recorded by the Head Constable in Roznamcha Ex. p, II. Apart from this, there is yet one more circumstance which lends support to the prosecution story and to the version of Deendayal (PW. 1) and the dying declaration of Sanjay Kumar. The witness Mahendra Kumar (PW. 4) had seen the appellant sitting at a culvert shortly before the time of the incident at Itwara Chouk. ( 12 ) WE are, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proved that it was the appellant who had stabbed the deceased in that night while he along with his father was returning back to their house from Mahavir talkies. The injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body. It has been opined by the Civil Surgeon Dr. Surange (PW. 10) as also by Dr. Nurul Hasan (PW. 11) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body. It has been opined by the Civil Surgeon Dr. Surange (PW. 10) as also by Dr. Nurul Hasan (PW. 11) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In our opinion, therefore, clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly attracted and the offence would be that of murder. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant, as have been awarded to him by the Court below are up-held. The appellant be informed accordingly. Appeal dismissed .