ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 379 Criminal Procedure Code. The sole accused is the appellant. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of one Siddappa. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 20-10-1977 at about 10 p.m. in the Harijan Colony, Ukkali village. PW 3, PW 4, PW 8 and PW 9 are eyewitnesses. According to the prosecution case the material witnesses and the accused belong to the same village. On the fateful date the accused, deceased and the material witnesses assembled in front of Mallayya Devar Gudi to discuss about the forthcoming fair. There was some discussion about the rentals to be collected from the lands. During that discussion the deceased said that it was not proper that PW 10 alone should work for Bala-Saheb Gonda and each one ought to be given the opportunity for the same. The deceased was said to be sitting under a tree, while so, the accused who had altercation with the deceased rushed forward armed with a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of the chest. Immediately the information was given and the police patel gave the report and the case was registered. PW 20, the Circle Inspector took up the investigation, held the inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The doctor, PW 1, who conducted the post-mortem found one stab wound 1½ x ¾ x 4 deep at the left side chest in between the 3rd and 4th intercostal space. On internal examination he found that the left lung and heart were cut. He opined that the death was due to that injury. On examination under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of these witnesses firstly on the ground that there are certain discrepancies in their evidence with reference to their earlier statements and also on the ground that there are variations in respect of certain details between one witness and the other. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of these witnesses firstly on the ground that there are certain discrepancies in their evidence with reference to their earlier statements and also on the ground that there are variations in respect of certain details between one witness and the other. The High Court in appeal against acquittal considered the evidence of eyewitnesses in detail and pointed out that the infirmities or discrepancies relied upon by the trial court are not of very serious nature and the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court was not proper and accordingly convicted the appellant. 2. Since this is an appeal under Section 379 Criminal Procedure Code, we have gone through the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Nothing significant has been elicited in the cross-examination which affects the prosecution version. In our view the High Court has rightly held that the reasons given by the trial court rejecting the evidence of these witnesses are wholly unsound. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even assuming the occurrence has taken place in the manner as spoken to by the eye-witnesses yet an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is not made. According to the learned counsel since the accused inflicted only one stab injury and since the doctor has not specifically stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, clause 3rdly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code is not attracted. We are unable to agree. The medical evidence shows that the stab wound was on the left side of the chest and it had cut the lung and heart. It does not require an expert's opinion to say further that this injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. That apart the evidence is to the effect that the accused went towards the deceased who was sitting under the tree and stabbed him with a knife on the chest and caused the injury. Therefore, he intended to cause that particular injury and clause 3rdly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code is fully attracted. We see no ground to interfere. 4. The appeal is dismissed.