JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel and perused the record. 2. The appellant has been convicted on a charge under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 100/- as fine. The prosecution case was that father of the deceased has taken on a crop sharing basis land belonging to the father of the accused. The accused-appellant was said to be annoyed because of this. Arjun Ram father of the deceased who had lodged the FIR was busy in the agriculture operations on the field alongwith his deceased son Kashiram and his other son Madanlal. After a while when the deceased was resting on sand dunes along side the field the accused-appellant came from behind and gave Kassi blows to the deceased, as a result of which he died. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR was delayed and the FIR version that two blows were given to the deceased was not corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the account given by the eye witnesses in as much as three injuries were found on the body of the deceased. It was also contended that the eye witnesses being relatives of the deceased were Interested witnesses and their over all testimony was not reliable. Lastly, It was contended that the case would fall within the ambit of Section 304 of the IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and the sentence. 4. So far as the delay in filing FIR is concerned, we find it to be properly explained because the complainant had gone to a wrong police station first in which considerable time was lost. So far as the difference in the FIR version and the version given by the eye witnesses as well as the medical evidence it is of little consequence. The oral evidence in the case and medical evidence is very clear that in all three blows were given to the deceased, one by the blunt side of the weapon and two with the sharp side. There is no reason to doubt the medical evidence and it cannot be said that the complainant could derive benefit by under playing the role of the accused in the occurrence. There is no reason to doubt the medical evidence and it cannot be said that the complainant could derive benefit by under playing the role of the accused in the occurrence. It is quite likely that the person who lodged the FIR had seen two blows being given and later on made a slight improvement In his deposition to bring it in line with the medical evidence. This would not be such an improvement which would discredit the witness totally. 5. As regards non-examination of independent witnesses, it has not been pointed out that any other eye witness than the father and brother of the deceased was available to the prosecution who has not been examined. In such circumstances, the prosecution cannot be blamed for not examining independent witnesses as there were none in the case who could be examined. The only caution which has to be taken is to assess the testimony of the eye witnesses related to the deceased with circumspection. Having read the statement of PW 1 Arjun Ram who lodged the FIR and PW 2 who was the other eye witness, we do not find anything in their statements which would discredit them to the extent of rendering their testimony totally unreliable. 6. So far as the conviction under Section 302 is concerned, all the injuries were caused on vital parts and one of them was on the neck cutting trachea. In such circumstances, the injuries themselves are sufficient to draw an inference that they were inflicted with intention to cause death. The doctor who conducted the autopsy has also opened that one of the injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no force in this appeal. It is dismissed. *******