B. C. VARMA, J, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Sadar Khan stands convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of his 3-4 years old son named Guddu alias Kamal Khan on 5-12-1981 between 2 00 to 2. 30 p. m. in the house of his wife Sushila Bai (P. W. 3 ). He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appeals. ( 2 ) IT appears from the evidence on the record that although not married, Sushila Bai and the appellant were living as husband and wife and that this union gave him the deceased Guddu. Sushila Bai and the appellant were living well as a consequence of which a few days prior to the incident Sushila Bai came to her house. Guddu remained with the appellant. On the date of incident the appellant along with Guddu went to fetch Sushila Bai from her village. According to the prosecution, he was then holding Farsa in his hand. On reaching her village, the appellant is said to have gone to his wife at a water tap and asked her to accompany him. She was reluctant. Both of them walked to her house where again the appellant commanded her to accompany him. She is said to have expressed that she would go back only if she was not beaten. This seems to have enraged the appellants feeling. He then instead of doing any harm to the wife, gave a hard blow with the Farsa on back of Guddus neck, as a consequence of which vertebra was completely cut and Guddu died on the spot. According to the prosecution, the appellant was caught hold of there only and tied with the rope. The blood stained Farsa was snatched from him and then the matter was reported to the police by Saiyad Mukhtyar Hussain (P. W. 1) vide Ex. P1 immediately after the incident at about 4. 2. 5 p. m. describing the entire incident in detail. ( 3 ) DURING investigation, the blood stained Farsa was sent for chemical examination and vide report Ex. P 10 was found to be stained with human blood. Guddu's dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and Dr. P. S. Chouhan (P. W. 13) opined that the injuries found on the neck of Guddu may be caused by that Farsa and that the death was homicidal. P 10 was found to be stained with human blood. Guddu's dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and Dr. P. S. Chouhan (P. W. 13) opined that the injuries found on the neck of Guddu may be caused by that Farsa and that the death was homicidal. ( 4 ) IT was not doubted of any stage of the prosecution that Guddu died and that his death was homicidal. Dr. Chouhans (P. W. 13) evidence further establishes beyond doubt that the death could be caused by Farsa seized from the possession of the appellant on the spot. This fatal assault was made by the appellant is proved by direct evidence of Safar Hussain (P. W. 2) who deposed in Court to have seen the appellant giving the Farsa blow to Guddu. He had described the incident quite naturally and has further deposed that the appellant was caught on the spot and the Farsa produced in the Court was seized from him there only. We have no reason to doubt this version which has been rightly accepted br the lower Court well. The deposition of Safar Hussain (P. W. 2) along with the circumstance that the appellant was apprehended on the spot with the blood stained farsa proved beyond doubt that it is the appellant who gave a farsa blow to his son Guddu alias Kamal Khan who succumbed to that injury. ( 5 ) THE testimony of Mohanlal (P. W. 7) also lends credence to this conclusion when he deposed that the appellant was seen going towards the spot of incident with his son and a farsa in his hand. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel argued that even if it is held that it is the appellant who assaulted the deceased Guddu, the action was because of provocation given by Sushiia Bai (P. W. 3) and was sudden. He, therefore, submitted that the act of the appellant in killing would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We however, do not find any circumstance to reach any such conclusion. The appellant started well armed. He has a farsa in his hand. Sushilabai refused to go with him. Instead of dealing with Sushilabai he gave blow to the son aged about 4 years. He chose the neck and no other part of the body. We however, do not find any circumstance to reach any such conclusion. The appellant started well armed. He has a farsa in his hand. Sushilabai refused to go with him. Instead of dealing with Sushilabai he gave blow to the son aged about 4 years. He chose the neck and no other part of the body. This is clearly indicative of the fact that upon refusal of Sushilabai (P. W. 3) to go with him he did not want Guddu to survive any further and then killed him. This act of the appellant does not fall in any of the exception to section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is entitled to no such benefit as claimed here. ( 7 ) WE find no substance in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .