JUDGMENT 1. - By his judgment dated November 15, 1979, the learned Sessions Judge, Pali convicted and sentenced the accused Bhagwan Das as under: 1. U/Sec. 302, IPC Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- 2. U/Sec. 448, IPC One month's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- 3. U/Sec. 323, IPC One month's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- 2. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has come-up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence. 3. At about 11.30 P.M. on April 19, 1979, PW 15 Banshi Lal appeared at Police Station, Sheopura district Pali and presented written report Ex. P7, It was stated therein that the appellant was the son-in-law of the accused Chunni Lal. The relations between the appellant and Chunni Lai were not happy. The appellant's wife Mst. Shyama (PW 9) had delivered a child nearly ten days ago. She was living with her parents in village Bariyala. The accused went to take his wife with him. PW 15 Banshi Lal, who is another son-in-law of the deceased Chunni Lal, had also come to Bariyala to take his wife Mst. Pani. The incident took place in the night intervening between 18th and 19th April, 1979. Chunni Lal was sleeping in the open court-yard of his house. The accused stealthily went where Chunni Lal was sleeping and struck blows to him with an Ish. He struck a number of blows to Chunni Lal. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of Chunni Lal and he became unconscious then and there on the spot and never regained the sense thereafter. PW 8 Mst. Naina, who is the widow of the deceased, raised cries. Some persons collected there. They tried to catch-hold the accused but could not. The accused managed to escape. Chunni Lal was taken in a tractor to Sojat for medical treatment and was admitted in the Government Hospital. His injuries were examined by the doctor on duty. He had multiple injuries on his body, as mentioned in Ex. P 16. On this information contained in Ex. P 7, the police registered a case u/ss.-307, 452 and 323, IPC. Despite treatment, Chunni Lal did not survive & passed away at about 5.55 P.M. on 20-4-1979 in the hospital itself. The usual investigation ensued. The police added s. 302,1PC. He had multiple injuries on his body, as mentioned in Ex. P 16. On this information contained in Ex. P 7, the police registered a case u/ss.-307, 452 and 323, IPC. Despite treatment, Chunni Lal did not survive & passed away at about 5.55 P.M. on 20-4-1979 in the hospital itself. The usual investigation ensued. The police added s. 302,1PC. The post - mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 9.30 A.M. on April 21, 1979, by Dr. Hari Shanker Soni, the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Sojat. In addition to the external injuries mentioned in Ex. P 16, multiple internal injuries were found. In the opinion of Dr. Soni, the cause of death of the victim was coma due to head injury (multiple fractures of skull bones leading to shock and respiratory failure). The postmortem report prepared by him is Ex. P 17. Some injuries were also found on the person of PW 8 Mst. Naina. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The site was inspected and the site plan was prepared. The blood-stained soil from there was seized and sealed. The accused, while running, away, left his one shoe at the place of occurrence. It was seized and sealed. The accused was arrested and in consequence of the information furnished by him, the three pieces of Ish were recovered. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challen against the accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 302, 452 and 323, IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and demanded the trial. He denied the whole occurrence and claimed absolute innocence. It was urged that he has been falsely implicated. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined four witnesses. The evidence was to establish the defence of alibi. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case as substantially true and the charges duly proved against the appellant. No merit was found in the defence put forward by the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. 4. The evidence was to establish the defence of alibi. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case as substantially true and the charges duly proved against the appellant. No merit was found in the defence put forward by the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to notice the injuries found on the victim's dead body when he was admitted in the hospital for treatment and while he was still alive. His injuries were examined by PW 14 Dr. Hari Shanker Soni. The injury report is Ex. P 16. Dr. Soni stated that he examined the injuries of Chunnil Lal at about 9.00 A.M. on April 19, 1979 and noticed the following: "1. Lacerated wound 4" long ⅙" wide, ⅙" deep vertical parasagital On frontto - parietal region starting from 1/4" above supracritrical region 1/2" medial to lateral end of upper eye brow. 2. Lacerated wound on left side of face 1" below left lower eye lid horizantal 1" x 1/4" and skin deep. 3. Lacerated wound 1" long horizantal starting from external meatus joint to left eye. It was skin deep & ⅙" wide. 4. Left ear was completely lacerated and teared in many pieces only libule was intact. 5. There was contusion of left mandibular region surroundious angle of mandible 4" x 1/2" bluish red in colour. 6. The contusion of both upper lids of eye bluish red in colour. 7. There were multiple about 15 superficial scratches on left side of chest between medical line to Delboid and nipple below to infroclanicular region." 5. Injury No. 4 was designated as grievous while injuries No. 5, 6 and 7 were designated as simple. The nature of injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 could not be as certained and X-ray examination was advised. The injuries we.e opined to have been caused by some blunt object. After the death of Chunni Lal, the autopsy of his dead body was conducted by Dr. Soni himself. He deposed that in addition to the injuries mentioned in EX. P 16, some additional bruises were found on the victim's dead body. He also noticed the following internal injuries : "1. Fracture of left frontal and parietal right from suprapostrial region going back to 8" long in parietal region. Soni himself. He deposed that in addition to the injuries mentioned in EX. P 16, some additional bruises were found on the victim's dead body. He also noticed the following internal injuries : "1. Fracture of left frontal and parietal right from suprapostrial region going back to 8" long in parietal region. The same fracture went down upto angle of mandible and orbital bones. 2. The mandibular bone was broken in three pieces from angle to joint. 3. Fronto - parictal bone was broken in four pieces. 4. Left orbital bone was broken in four pieces in equal parts. 5. Both parietal bones broken in lipe as shape (3) on each side i.e. 6" in length in the centre." 6. Dr. Soni stated that the brain injuries of the victim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 7. Dr. Soni also examined the injuries of PW 8 Mst. Naini and found the following : "1. Superficial abrasion oval shape 1/2" x 1/4" on the posterior aspect of left elbow joint. 2. Linear abrasion 1" long vertical just inferior to posterior aspect of left elbow joint in mid line. 3. Linear abrasion 1/2" long shape on lateral posterior aspect of fore-arm 3" below posterior aspect of left elbow." 8. All these injuries were simple, caused by some blunt object. The injury report prepared by him is EX. P 18. 9. The testimony of Dr. Soni is sufficient to establish that the death. of Chunni Lal was not natural. It was homicidal. 10. In order to bring home the charges to the accused, the prosecution adduced the following sets of evidence : 1. the direct evidence consisting of eye witnesses PW 7 Dewa Ram, PW 8 Mst. Naina, PW 9 Shyama, PW 10 Mangla Ram and PW 15 Banshi Lal; 2. Shoe EX. 3 belonging to the accused was found on the place of occurrence; 3. the clothes of the accused-Dhoti EX. 1 and Shirt EX. 2-were found stained with human blood and 4. in consequence of the information furnished by the accused, the three broken pieces of Ish were recovered lying scattered at the place of occurrence. 11. Shoe EX. 3 belonging to the accused was found on the place of occurrence; 3. the clothes of the accused-Dhoti EX. 1 and Shirt EX. 2-were found stained with human blood and 4. in consequence of the information furnished by the accused, the three broken pieces of Ish were recovered lying scattered at the place of occurrence. 11. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful examination of the prosecution evidence, discarded evidence relating to shoe, blood-stained clothes of the accused and the recovery of lathi pieces, that is to say, the evidence under the above heads 2, 3 and 4. He accepted the testimony of the eye witnesses and held the charges proved against the accused on the strength of what they deposed against him. 12. We have heard Mr. Soni the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 13. Launching a blistering attack on the approach of the Court below, it was contended by Mr. Soni that the evidence of the five so-called eye witnesses has been wrongly relied upon for convicting the accused. It was argued that the offence was committed in the early hours when it was dark. The accused could not be caught at the spot. There was no occasion for PW 7 Dewaram and PW 10 Mangla Ram to be at the spot. PW 15 Banshi Lal, admittedly according to him, had gone to answer the call of nature. His presence at the material time is, therefore, highly doubtful. PW 9 Mst. Shyama had not seen the accused striking the blows to the deceased. PW 8 Mst, Naina is an old woman and there is every possibility of an error on her part in correctly identifying the real culprit. Mr. Soni argued that a careful analysis of the evidence of these five witnesses will convincingly show that the identity of the culprit could not be established beyond doubt. 14. It was, on the other hand, contended with equal vehemence by the learned Public Prosecutor that the five ocular witnesses have no axe to grind against the appellant. The deceased was his real father-in-law. PW 8 Mst. Naina is her mother-in-law while PW 15 Banshi Lal is his brother-in-law. PW 7 Dewaram and PW 8 Mangla Ram are independent persons having no grouse against the appellant. PW 9 Mst. The deceased was his real father-in-law. PW 8 Mst. Naina is her mother-in-law while PW 15 Banshi Lal is his brother-in-law. PW 7 Dewaram and PW 8 Mangla Ram are independent persons having no grouse against the appellant. PW 9 Mst. Shyama is the real wife of the appellant. It cannot be imagined that all these persons will hatch a conspiracy to falsely implicate the accused for no apparent reasons. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. In order to properly appreciate the contention raised, it would be proper to briefly read the evidence of these five witnesses. PW 8 Mst. Naini is the widow of the deceased-victim. Describing the family relationship between her and the appellant, she deposed that in the night of occurrence, her husband Chunni Lal was sleeping on a cot in the open court-yard of the house. She was sleeping a few feet away from him in the same court-yard. In the early hours, at about 5.00 A.M. she got awoke on hearing some noise. She saw the appellant striking blows to her husband Chunni Lal with an lsh. She tried to intervene and fell on her husband to protect him. The accused even did not spare her and struck blows on her left hand with the Ish he was having with him. She raised cries. Dewaram (PW 7), Banshi Lal (PW 15), Mangla Ram (PW 10) and Kunaram came there. They tried to catch-hold of the accused, but the accused managed to run away. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of Chunni Lal and he became unconscious on the spot. He never regained consciousness there after. His clothes got drenched with blood. The beating was so severe that the Ish got broken into three pieces. She has been cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from her which may make her testimony unworthy of belief or credence. While evaluating her evidence, it should not be forgotten that though she is the widow of the deceased-victim, she, at the same time, is the real mother-in-law of the appellant, to whom her daughter Shyama (PW 9) had been married. The presence of this witness of the spot is not open to any doubt. The occurrence took place in her own house where her presence was quite normal. Then, the accused did not spare her also when she tried to intervene. The presence of this witness of the spot is not open to any doubt. The occurrence took place in her own house where her presence was quite normal. Then, the accused did not spare her also when she tried to intervene. She sustained as many as three injuries on her left hand near elbow when she tried to protect her husband. These two factors leave no room to doubt that she is a witness to the occurrence. Her testimony could not be shattered or shaken or impeached in any manner. Mr. Soni contended that since the fact of her being beaten by the accused at the time of the occurrence has not been mentioned in the First Information Report EX. P 7, she should not be taken to be a witness of truth and her presence on the spot at the crucial moment is not free from doubt. We have examined the contention and find no force in it. In FIR EX. P 7, her presence has been mentioned and it has been mentioned that she tried to intervene. Though it has not been mentioned in EX. P 7 that she was also landed blows by the accused, the omission is of no material significance. Since the injuries received by her were simple and not of serious nature, it was quite probable that it missed the attention of the author of FIR EX. P 7. We may point out that the prosecution case, more or less, rests squarely on what she testified. The learned Sessions Judge, after a critical analysis of her testimony, accepted what she testified. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not subscribe and cogent or convincing reasons which may induce us to take a View: different from that taken by the trial court. We find no risk in . maintaining the conviction of the appellant on the sole testimony of this witness. 15. PW 15 Banshi Lai is also a son-in-law of the deceased-victim. He deposed that his wife Mst. Pani was living with her parents. As she had delivered a male child, he was invited by his in-laws. He went there. At about 5.00 or 6.00 A.M. on the day of occurrence when he was returning after freeing himself from the call of nature, he saw the appellant striking blows to Chunni Lal. Chunni Lal was sleeping on a cot in the court-yard. As she had delivered a male child, he was invited by his in-laws. He went there. At about 5.00 or 6.00 A.M. on the day of occurrence when he was returning after freeing himself from the call of nature, he saw the appellant striking blows to Chunni Lal. Chunni Lal was sleeping on a cot in the court-yard. His mother-in-law (Mst. Naini PW 8) was raising cries. The accused did not spare her even and struck some blows to her. Hearing the cries, Dewaram (PW 7) and Mangla Ram (PW 10) came there. They tried to catch hold of the accused, but the accused forcibly managed to run away. The Ish, with which the accused struck blows, got broken into three pieces. There were multiple wounds on the body of Chunni Lal and blood was oozing out from them. The clothes he was wearing got drenched with blood. The witness further stated that Chunni Lal was taken to Sojat and was admitted in the hospital for treatment. He accompanied Chunni Lai upto Sojat. From Sojat, he went to Police Station Sheopura and presented" report Ex. P. 7 of the occurrence. He is, again, a close relative of the deceased-victim. But at the same time he is also a close relative of the appellant. His wife and the wife of the appellant are real sisters. As such we are unable to discared his testimony on the ground of his close relationship with the deceased - victim. Of course, in cross-examination he admitted that the blows were already struck before he could reach the actual spot of occurrence. However, he had seen the accused running away from the place of occurrence and tried to catch him. It can be atleast gathered from what he stated that he saw the accused running away from the spot within a few seconds of the occurrence. 16. PW 7 Dewaram deposed that on hearing the cries, he got up and went running to the house of the deceased-victim Chunni Lal. He saw the appellant striking blows to Chunni Lal with an Ish. Chunni Lal had become unconscious. There were multiple wounds on his body, from which blood was oozing out. The clothes he was wearing were drenched with the blood of his wounds. Chunni Lal's wife (Mst. Naini PW 8) was also present there. There were injuries on her left hand. Chunni Lal had become unconscious. There were multiple wounds on his body, from which blood was oozing out. The clothes he was wearing were drenched with the blood of his wounds. Chunni Lal's wife (Mst. Naini PW 8) was also present there. There were injuries on her left hand. He tried to catch-hold of the accused, but the accused managed to run away. Of course, in his cross-examination he could not maintain his stand to have seen the accused actually landing blows; the fact remains that he had atleast seen the accused running away from the spot just within a few seconds of the occurrence. It does not appear that he has any grudge against the appellant or is otherwise interested in falsely implicating him. The very fact that he corrected himself and instead of stating that he saw the appellant striking blows to the deceased-victim, he saw the appellant running away, shows that he is witness of truth. It was very easy for him to stick to his version that he had seen the appellant striking the blows. The fact that he resiled from this stand shows that he is an independent person not interested in any part. As such, his testimony that he had seen the appellant running away from the spot, cannot be discarded or dismissed. PW 10 Mangla Ram stated that on hearing the noise, he went to the house of the deceased-victim. When he was entering that house, he saw the accused coming out of it. He tried to catch-hold of him, but could not as he is an old man of over seventy years in age. He had not seen the accused actually landing blows to the deceased. But he had seen the appellant running away from the spot. His testimony that he had seen the appellant running away from the spot is not open to any doubt. PW 9 Mst. Shyame is the wife of the appellant. She was sleeping in a Kotha. A few days ago she had delivered a child. Hearing the noise she came out and saw her father Chunni Lal lying in an injured condition with blood oozing out from his wounds. Her testimony is of not any material help to the prosecution. 17. A survey of the evidence of the eye witnesses shows that the prosecution case rests more or less on the testimony of PW 8 Mst. Her testimony is of not any material help to the prosecution. 17. A survey of the evidence of the eye witnesses shows that the prosecution case rests more or less on the testimony of PW 8 Mst. Naini. We have already discussed her testimony above and have stated that we find no good and cogent reasons to discard what she testified against the appellant. She had seen the appellant striking blows to her deceased husband. I PW 7 Dewaram, PW 10 Mangla Ram and PW 15 Banshi Lal had atleast seen the appellant running away from the spot of occurrence. That gives an I independent corroboration to the testimony of PW 8 Mst. Naini. We have, Lherefore, no hesitation in endorsing the finding of the trial court that the I accused went to the deceased's house and struck blows to him with an Ist I while the deceased was sleeping on a cot. The accused after landing blows forcibly managed to run away. 18. It would be proper at this stage to take up the defence of alibi advanced by the appellant. He has examined three witnesses DW 2 Babudas, D 3 Rampal Singh and DW 4 Narsinghdas to show that at the time of occurrence he was in his village Dhangarwas. It may be mentioned that the appellant's village Dhangarwas is only two miles away from the place of occurrence i.e. village Bariyak. DW 2 Babudas and DW 4 Narsinghdas are the real brothers of the appellant. The testimony of Rampal Singh is of general nature that he used to see the accused offering services at the temple of his village. This sort of evidence does not establish the defence of alibi. The remaining two being the brothers of the appellant can depose anything in order to save him from penal consequences. More over, as the distance between the two villages is nearly of two miles, the accused could easily go to the place of occurrence and return back after the commission of the offence. Such type of evidence relating to alibi can be manufactured and fabricated at any time. The Court below was justified in discarding the defence relating to alibi. 19. It was then argued that the prosecution case should not be taken as true because the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution. We find no force in this contention. The Court below was justified in discarding the defence relating to alibi. 19. It was then argued that the prosecution case should not be taken as true because the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution. We find no force in this contention. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 6.00 A.M. on April 19, 1979. The FIR EX. P 7 was lodged at about 11.30 P.M. on the same day at Police Station, Sheopura. The explanation for the delay is that PW 15 Banshi Lai who had lodged the FIR EX. P 7, first took the deceased to Sojat for medical treatment. After getting him admitted in the hospital, he went to Police Station, Sheopura from Sojat. We can well imagine the psychology of PW 15 Banshi Lal. Since the deceased had not died on the spot and was still alive, PW 15 Banshi Lal thought it proper first to take him for treatment to Sojat. It these circumstances, it was quite natural on his part to do so. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the FIR and even if there is any, it stands satisfactorily explained. The contention relating to the delay in lodging the FIR, thus, fails. 20. The last contention, which survives for consideration, relates to the nature of offence. It was argued that the deceased was the real father-in-law of the accused. The motive alleged is highly in adequate to incite the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. As such, the offence made out does not fall within the ambit of Section 302, IPC. It was urged that the offence made out is either under section 325 or 304 Part II, IPC. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission and find no substance in it. The prosecution evidence shows that the appellant struck blows with a formidable wooden Ish (rod). The blows were landed on the head of the victim. The victim was sleeping on a cot in the court-yard of his house when he was strucked blows by the appellant. Now, where a man strikes another with a lethal weapon on a vital part of the body, an intention on his part can be inferred, to cause an injury which he knew to be likely to cause death. It is not a case of single injury. Now, where a man strikes another with a lethal weapon on a vital part of the body, an intention on his part can be inferred, to cause an injury which he knew to be likely to cause death. It is not a case of single injury. Here the repetition of blows were there and that too on a vital part like head. The internal injuries of head of the deceased show that the skull was completely smashed and crushed. The frontal, parietal, mandibular and orbital bones got broken in multiple parts by the blows inflicted to him by the appellant. In these circumstances, we can safely infer that the accused intended to cause the death of the victim. More over, Dr. Soni (PW 14) stated that the head injuries of the deceased-victim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The case is, therefore, also covered by Clause 3rdly of Section 300 and the offence made out is punishable under section 302, IPC. 21. No other contention was raised. From what has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the accused was rightly convicted and sentenced. 22. In the result, the convictions and sentences of accused Bhagwan Das are maintained and his appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******