JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by Toliya against the judgment dated April 9, 1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, by which the appellant Toliya was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Rakma and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of zinc to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the intervening night between October 9, and 10, 1978, a Jagran' took place at the temple of 'Gwalmata' situated on the magra of Amravi near village Singpura. The Jagran' was Over at about 4 A.M. and thereafter the persons who participated in the Jagran' lay down on the ground to take rest and some of them went to sleep. The appellant Toliya, deceased Rakma, PW 4 Punja, PW 5 Maliya and PW 6 Homla and PW 7 Chhagan had also taken part in the `Jagran'. Some time latter Toliya went away for making water and while returning he brought a heavy stone which he gave a blow on the head of Rakma. Toliya is alleged to have stated at that time that Rakma was his enemy because he had killed his father and Toliya ran away after throwing the stone towards Rakma. Rakma died on the spot as a result of the head injury caused to him on account of the throwing of the stone by Toliya. 3. A First Information Report about this occurrence was lodged by Punja at Police Station Banswara at about 10 A.M. on October 10, 1978, on the basis of which a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against Toliya. After the usual investigation, a challan was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, who committed the accused Toliya to the court of Sessions Judge, Banswara for trial in respect of an offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge tried the case against the accused Toliya and on the basis of the evidence led before him, convicted the accused Toliya for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 4. The learned Sessions Judge tried the case against the accused Toliya and on the basis of the evidence led before him, convicted the accused Toliya for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 4. The main evidence against the accused Toliya consists of the statements of PW 4 Punja, PW 5 Maliya, PW 6 Homla and PW 7 Chhagan, who were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence according to the prosecution. All these witnesses have supported the prosecution story that a Jagran' had taken place at the temple of Gwalmata' and upto 4 A.M. devotional songs were recited and thereafter the participants in the Jagran' lay down on the ground to take rest. Some of the people who had collected there for the Jagran' continued to talk amongst them while some of them went to sleep. Rakma deceased was one of those who had slept. At that time accused Toliya went out to make water and while returning he brought a heavy stone which he threw towards the head of Rakma deceased. The stone hit Rakma on the head near the left eye and as a result of the blow Rakma died. According to these witnesses, accused Toliya had entertained a suspicion that Rakma had killed his father which became apparent as at the time of throwing the stone towards Rakma, Toliya had stated that he (Rakma) had killed his father. After the occurrence Chhagan and Punja witnesses went to fetch Nagji, brother of deceased Rakma, from his house. PW 8 Nagji has supported to the testimonies of these witnesses and has stated that at about 4 A.M. Chhagan came to his house and awakened him saying that Toliya had killed Rakma. Thereupon the witness Nagji accompanied Chhagan to the place of occurrence, temple of Gwalmata, and found that his brother Rakma had suffered an injury on the left side of the forehead and was profusely bleeding and had expired. Thereafter, Punja and Nagji went to the police station to make a report. 5. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses and there appears to us no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that accused Toliya was falsely implicated inasmuch as the witnesses PW 5 Maliya, PW 6 Homla and PW 7 Chhagan had enmity with the appellant Toliya. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses and there appears to us no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that accused Toliya was falsely implicated inasmuch as the witnesses PW 5 Maliya, PW 6 Homla and PW 7 Chhagan had enmity with the appellant Toliya. Learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Dharm Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 (Supp.) SCC P. 20 . But that decision is distinguishable as the eye witnesses in that case were not only inimical to the accused but they belonged to the group of the complainant and had continually deposed in all cases for the complainant. The question whether particular witness should be believed or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the court considers their testimony as reliable. In the present case we find no ground for disbelieving the testimony of the aforesaid four eye witnesses. There can be no doubt their presence at the time of occurrence at the temple of 'Gwalmata'. It may be observed that Chhagan and Punja when they went they went to fetch Nagji, brother of deceased Rakma told him that Toliya appellant gave a blow with a stone to Rakma deceased, as appears from the testimony of PW 8 Nagji, Punja. Maliya, Homla, Chhagan and Nagji as well as accused Toliya belonged to the same village. The accused was known to the witnesses and they have claimed to have seen the occurrence from close quarters. Thus, they were in a position to see the occurrence and to testify about the identity of the assailant. No material discrepancy was pointed out in the statements of the eye witnesses Punja, Maliya, Homla and Chhagan. Each of these witnesses has stated in clear and definite terms that they had seen the the appellant Toliya hitting deceased Rakma with a heavy stone which struck Rakma on the head near left eye. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses inspires confidence and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance on their testimony in holding that the appellant Toliya was responsible for causing injury with a stone to deceased Rakma. We see no reason to take a different view. 6. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses inspires confidence and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance on their testimony in holding that the appellant Toliya was responsible for causing injury with a stone to deceased Rakma. We see no reason to take a different view. 6. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that a copy of the First Information Report was sent to the Magistrate on October 12, 1978 although the First Information Report was recorded on October 10, 1978 at about 10 A.M. The argument is devoid of any force inasmuch as we find that 10th and 11th October, 1978 were holidays on account of Dasbera and a copy of the First Information Report was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara on October 12, 1978 when the court reopened after Dashera holidays. PW 9 Devi Puri, who was then Station House Officer at Kotwali Police Station, Banswara, where the First Information Report was lodged has stated that he had recorded the First Information Report Ex. P. 6 made by Punjiya and thereafter he went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Panchnama and the site plan. No question was put to PW 9 Devi Puri in cross examination about the alleged delay in sending the First Information Report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. Another argument, which was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the report of the Serologist was not produced and the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in raising an interference that human blood was found on the stone recovered by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence and the Dhoti which was taken possession of from the accused appellant. In this connection reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Hansiya and others v. State of Raj., 1984 RLR 153 There is no doubt that the report of the Serologist was not produced in evidence by the prosecution to show that human blood was found on the stone and the Dhoti were found smeared with blood could not be availed of by the prosecution. The contention of the learned counsel in this respect must be accepted. However, there is direct evidence of the eye witnesses who saw the accused inflicting the blow to the deceased in the present case. 8. The contention of the learned counsel in this respect must be accepted. However, there is direct evidence of the eye witnesses who saw the accused inflicting the blow to the deceased in the present case. 8. Lastly it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case of single injury and the offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out against the accused appellant Toliya. Reliance was placed in this connection on the decision of the Court in Mangu son of Bhula Adivasi v. The State of Raj., 1980 Cr. LR (Raj.) 525 . The testimony of PW 10 Dr. Sushil Mehta shows that on Postmortem examination of the body of deceased Rakma he found the following injuries on the body of the Rakma deceased. (1) A wound 2" x 1" brain deep on the left side of the forehead with multiple fractures of the skull bone. Bones with depressed with multiple chips and the wound was deep up-to brain. The matter could be seen. (2) Left eye completely destroyed with multiple fracture of the orbit and adjacent facial bone. The witness stated that the cause of death was shock, hemorrhage and injury to brain and skull bones, on account of the injury inflicted on the face and head of the deceased, which were ante-mortem in nature. The testimony of PW 10 shows that although a single injury might have been inflicted to the deceased the stone was hurled with such force that it not only destroyed the left eye but caused multiple fracture of the skull bones, so much so that the bones of the skull were depressed and broken into multiple chips and the brain was also injured. This also in evidence that Rakma succumbed to the injury. In Mangu's case (3), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased demanded jhagra money' from the accused on which the accused was enraged and picked up a stone and threw it on the deceased from a distance without aiming any particular part of the body. On these facts, it was held that in the circumstances of that case the accused could not have any knowledge that he was likely to cause death by his act. On these facts, it was held that in the circumstances of that case the accused could not have any knowledge that he was likely to cause death by his act. In the aforesaid case, it was pointed out that unless there was evidence that the accused aimed at a vital part of the body and hits it, the case could not come within the purview of Section 299 IPC. The Mangu's case (3) is clearly distinguishable on facts, as in the present case the accused appellant Toliya brought a heavy stone with him and threw it with considerable force towards the head of the deceased Rakma. From the facts of the present case, it can safely be said that the act of throwing a heavy stone aimed at the head of deceased Rakma with such force as to cause multiple fracture of the skull bones and resulting in the skull bones being broken into multiple chips and also causing injury to the brain of the deceased was done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. In this view of the matter, we are not prepared to hold that the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, has not been made out, as from the evidence on record it is clear that the accused appellant by throwing a heavy stone aimed at the head of the deceased Rakma from close quarters intended to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. 9. As a result of the above discussion, we find no force in this appeal and uphold the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, convicting the accused appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******