DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent was the accused in sessions Case No. 7/82 on the file of the additional Sessions Judge, Mysore. He was tried for the offence punishable under section 302 I. P. C. on the allegation that on 4-11-1981 at about 9am in his house in Gousia Nagar, he committed the murder of his wife Asraf Unnisa by assaulting her with the crow bar (M. O-1 ). ( 2 ) AS the accused denied the commission of the offence, P. Ws-1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to 12and M. Os-1 to 17 were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Exhibits-D-1 to D-3 were got marked during the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses. ( 3 ) ACCEPTING the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused under Section 304 Part-II I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for five years. Hence, this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 i. P. C. by obtaining leave. ( 4 ) THE accused has not preferred any appeal against his conviction under section 304 Part-ll I. P. C. as stated by the office and the learned State P. P. Hence, the conviction of the accused under Sec- ton 304 Part-ll I. P. C. has become final. Therefore, it follows that the finding of the learned trial Judge that it is the accused who caused the death of his wife Asraf Unnisa has become final and, in this appeal, the accused cannot dispute the said fact in view of the decisions in 1) The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thadi narayana ( AIR 1962 SC 240 ) ; and 2) state of Mysore v. Hanamant Nagappa gavada of Hattarwad (AIR 1965 Mysore, 150 ). ( 5 ) SO, the only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the offence committed by the accused in causing the death of his wife would be one punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. or Section 304 Part-ll I. P. C. as held by the trial Judge. ( 6 ) IN deciding this question, it would be useful to bear in mind the nature of the injuries caused to the deceased. Dr. ( 6 ) IN deciding this question, it would be useful to bear in mind the nature of the injuries caused to the deceased. Dr. Panduranga Shenoy (P. W- 1), who conducted the Post Mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Asraf Unnisa, has stated that he noticed the following externalinjuries on her dead body ; 1) Right side of the head and face was flattened. 2) Right ear lobe was lacerated and hanging loose. 3) Split lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep in size on the right side of head, 4 cm above right ear. 4) Multiple lacerated wounds due to splitting of skin, on the right side of the face. All were bone deep. 5) Lacerated wound 4 x 1 cm x 0. 5 cm in size, on the right side of upper lip. 6) Right angle of the mouth was torn and right side of lower lip was contused. 7) Contused lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the right side of lower jaw. 8) The area around right ear was contused diffusely. 9) Diffused irregular contusions over the entire front of chest and breast. 10) Abrasion 6 x 4 cms on the back of right fore-arm, 4 cm above the wrist. 11) Abrasion 2 x 1 cms on the back of right shoulder joint. 12) Linear abrasion 10 x 4 cms on the back of the chest across the right shoulder blade. On dissection, he noticed the following internal injuries: 1) Scalp layers were contused all over, more on the left side. 2) A depressed comminuted fracture of the right parietal bone with radiating fissured fractures extending towards all directions. 3) The fracture has extended to the base of the skull separating it at midcranial fossa. 4) Membranes torn on right side. 5) Brain was lacerated at the right hemisphere. It was pale, intracerebral bleeding on right side present. 6) 2nd to 4th ribs on right side were fractured at mid armpit level. 7) Pleura on right side contused. 8) Right lung on the back aspect was contused. 9) The abdominal cavity contained 100 cc of blood. 10) The area adjoining the transverse colon, mesentry and paravertebral muscles were deeply contused. 11) Area around the right kidney contused. 6) 2nd to 4th ribs on right side were fractured at mid armpit level. 7) Pleura on right side contused. 8) Right lung on the back aspect was contused. 9) The abdominal cavity contained 100 cc of blood. 10) The area adjoining the transverse colon, mesentry and paravertebral muscles were deeply contused. 11) Area around the right kidney contused. 12) Uterus was enlarged to 16 to 20 weeks size and it contained a dead male foetus of the size of 16 to 20 weeks. Well developed placenta was present. 13) Right side of lower jaw was fractured at the right canine level. 14) Right and left central incisors of lower jaw were missing and fresh bleeding present. ( 7 ) P W-1 has stated that all the said injuries were ante-mortem ; that injuries 1, 3 and 4 to 9 with corresponding internal injuries and the injuries noted on the right side of the head and face both internal and external were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased ; that the said injuries could be caused by hitting with the crow-bar like M. O-1 ; and that the deceased had died due to head injuries due to crush injuries to the right side of head consequent upon heavy blunt impact. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to P. W-5, who is the daughter of the deceased and the accused, the crow-bar (M. 0-1) was used by the accused for assaulting her mother. It was found lying by the side of the dead body inside the house and some hair were sticking to it. !t was also blood-stained. From Ex. P-6, under which it was seized, it is clear that the said rod was about 4 feet 4 inches in length. Unfortunately, its weight is not mentioned. But looking to its length and the fact that it was of iron, it must be fairly a heavy weapon. Thus, it is clear that the said injuries were caused to the deceased on vital parts of the body by a deadly weapon like M. O-1. The evidence shows that those injuries were not accidental. It is also not the case of the accused that they were accidental. Thus, it is clear that the said injuries were caused to the deceased on vital parts of the body by a deadly weapon like M. O-1. The evidence shows that those injuries were not accidental. It is also not the case of the accused that they were accidental. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to Clause 3rdly of section 300 I. P. C. , culpable homicide is murder if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. Thus, Clause 3rdly consists of two parts. Under the first part, it has to be shown that there was an intention on the part of the accused to inflict the particular injury which was found on the body of the deceased. The second part requires that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. So far as the first part is concerned, the Court has to see whether the injury which was found on the deceased was the one intended by the accused or whether it was accidental without his having intended to cause that bodily injury. Once it is found that the injury was not accidental and the accused intended to cause the injury which was actually inflicted and found on the body of the deceased, the first part shall be satisfied. From the medical evidence, it is clear that the first requirement of the Section stands satisfied and that the injuries found on the deceased were jsufficient in the, ordinary course of, nature to cause death. ( 10 ) IN Gudar Dusadh v. State of bihar (AIR 1972 S 952) the accused had given a lathi blow on the head of the deceased and the attack was premeditated and not accidental. The 'only injury caused was found to be sufficient in the' ordinary course of nature to cause death and it had actually resulted in death. ( 10 ) IN Gudar Dusadh v. State of bihar (AIR 1972 S 952) the accused had given a lathi blow on the head of the deceased and the attack was premeditated and not accidental. The 'only injury caused was found to be sufficient in the' ordinary course of nature to cause death and it had actually resulted in death. It was heid that case fell under clause 3rdly of Section 300 I. P. C. and the accused was convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 11 ) IN this case there were as many as 9 serious injuries Which were caused to the deceased and which had resulted in the fracture of the parietal bone, tearing of the membranes, laceration of the brain, fracture of the 2nd to 4th ribs on the right side, and injuries to pleura and right lung. Male foetus of the size of 16 to 20 weeks found in the womb of the deceased was also dead. Regard being had to the nature and number of the injuries, the vital parts chosen, and the nature of the weapon used, the intention of the accused must have been to cause the death of the deceased and the offence committed by him would be one under section 302 I. P. C. The learned trial judge erred in holding that the offence fell under S. 304 Part-ll I. P. C. According to the learned trial Judge, if the intention of the accused was to kill his wife with m. O-1, then greater injuries than the one inflicted on the head of the deceased would have been caused by using greater force. As observed earlier, the right side of the face and head was flattened. That shows the enormous force that must have been used in causing the said injury. So, the said observation of the learned trial judge appears to have been made without looking into the nature of the injuries caused to the deceased. This brings us to the question of sentence. The accused was about 32 years' old at the time of the incident. He had four female children then by the deceased. It is an usual incident of quarrel between husband and wife resulting in the husband killing the wife. Hence, it cannot be said to be the rarest of rare cases calling for the extreme penalty of death. The accused was about 32 years' old at the time of the incident. He had four female children then by the deceased. It is an usual incident of quarrel between husband and wife resulting in the husband killing the wife. Hence, it cannot be said to be the rarest of rare cases calling for the extreme penalty of death. Under the circumstances, we think the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life would suffice, especially as the accused has been released after undergoing the sentence imposed by the trial Court, and as we are convicting him of a graver offence of which he was acquitted by the trial Court. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the respondent- accused under Section, 304 Part-II I. P. C. and the sentence imposed by the trial court are set aside and the respondent accused is convicted under Section 302 i. P. C. and he is sentenced to under go imprisonment for life. The trial Judge is directed to issue warrant for the arrest of the accused and to commit him to custody to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence. --- *** --- .