R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the ORDER and order dated 1/4/1989 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur passed in S. T. No. 31189 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under section 302 of I. P. C. for causing murder of Jogdiya and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE brief history of the case is that Damadi (P. W. 1) is a widow and was residing with her father Jogdiya on the date of incident i. e. 12/9/1988 Damadi and Jogdiya were returning from Alirajpur. They reached village Gadat. Accused-appellant came there with one stick in his hand and wanted to take Damadi as his wife. This was resisted by Jogdiya. Jogdiya tried to intervene and resisted the attempt of accused. Damadi at the instance of Jogdiya left the place went to the nearby village. Meanwhile, accused being causing injuries to Jogdiya by means of a lathi. ( 3 ) DAMADI (P. W. 1) reported the matter to one Mukam Singh Patel and came to the spot along with some persons of the village and found Jogdiya dead with injuries on his body. The matter was reported to police by damadi at P. S. Alirajpur on the same day about 6 to 7 p. m. As such, a case was registered against the accused. The Police Officer went on the spot, prepared the map and inquest report. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. The autopsy on the body of deceased Jogdiya was conducted by P. W. 4 - Dr. Faiyazhussain who found eight contusions and lacerated wounds including on right mandible, right parietal, chin and chest. There was one contusion on the right part of the neck with blood clots beneath it. The third vertebra was fractured and there was laceration on spinal card and that resulted in the death of deceased. ( 4 ) AFTERLNVESTIGATION challan was filed against the accused which was committed to the court of sessions. ( 5 ) THE accused abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. ( 6 ) LEARNED Trial Judge convicted and sentenced him as above. Hence this appeal. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction is based on single eyewitness which is not reliable. ( 5 ) THE accused abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. ( 6 ) LEARNED Trial Judge convicted and sentenced him as above. Hence this appeal. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction is based on single eyewitness which is not reliable. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the accused did not intend to commit murder. At the most he wanted to give beatings to Jogdiya who intervened in taking away of Damadi as the wife of accused. ( 8 ) WE have perused the evidence adduced in the case. Damadi (P. W. 1) has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the accused caused injuries to her father. No doubt she is a near relation of deceased but she is the last person to implicate a false person and leave the real culprit. We find nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 Damadi who claims to be the eye-witness of the incident. ( 9 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 Damadi stands corroborated from the statement of P. W. 4 - Dr. Faiyazhussain who found injuries on the body of deceased which have been caused by hard and blunt object like lathi. P. W. 2 Mukam Singh whom the matter was reported immediately did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile but that does not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. ( 10 ) BATHLIYA (P. W. 3) has also corroborated the story disclosed by P. W. 1 Damadi. She admittedly narrated the incident to this witness and to Mukam Singh Patel and disclosed the name of the accused. P. W. 5 S. D. Bhargava has proved the F. I. R. (Ex. P/i) lodged by Damadi. The F. I. R. also contains description of the incident and the fact of causing injuries by the accused Damadi, she therefore, stands corroborated from the F. I. R. as well. ( 11 ) THUS, P. W. 1 Damadi stands corroborated not only from the medical evidence but further stands corroborated from the evidence of P. W. 3 Bathliya to whom the story was disclosed immediately and F. I. R. (Ex. P-i) proved by P. W. 5. Hence facts of causing injuries by the accused which resulted in the death of Jogdiya stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. P-i) proved by P. W. 5. Hence facts of causing injuries by the accused which resulted in the death of Jogdiya stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. We find nothing to interfere in that finding. ( 12 ) THE next point for consideration is as to whether the accused intended to commit murder or the case is covered under a lesser offence. ( 13 ) THE accused caused nearly eight injuries to Jogadiya. Externally only one fracture on the right forearm was detected. The fracture of vertebra and the laceration on the spinal card could be detected after dissection of the body. The accused did not cause any fatal injury on the head or on the chest. It appears accused wanted to give good beating to Jogdiya who intervened in taking away of Damadi. But while causing injury on the neck, and verbetra, he must have had the knowledge that the same may result into death. ( 14 ) IN our opinion, therefore, accused can be held guilty for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder and causing fatal injury on the neck with the knowledge that the same is likely to cause death. This act of accused-appellant would squirely fall under section 304, Part II of I. P. C. ( 15 ) AS a result the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 of I. P. C. but is convicted under section 304, Part II of I. P. C. for causing injuries which resulted in death and with the knowledge thereof. ( 16 ) NOW so far as the sentence is concerned may be observed here that the accused not only tried to commit abduction of Damadi for forcing her for illicit intercourse or for becoming his wife; he caused injuries to the father of Damadi who foiled the attempt of the accused of abduction of Damadi. Therefore, a liberal attitude towards the sentence cannot be adopted. The accusedappellant is, therefore, sentenced to 7 years RI. (seven years R. I.) Any period of detention as under-trial prisoner may be given a set-off in the substantive sentence. Appeal allowed. .