ORDER : Dr. A.S. Anand, J. 1. The trial court as well as the High Court relying upon the eyewitness account furnished by PW 1 Gulam Mohd., PW 4 Rashida Khatoon and PW 5 Rohilla Bano and the dying declaration Exh. P-10 of deceased Mst Maina recorded on 18-6-1983 by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 1, Bikaner found that the respondent on 18-6-1983 had caused two stab injuries to the deceased with a knife. After taking into consideration the medical evidence furnished by Dr Prem Narayna, PW 11 and Dr. Shyam Sunder, PW 13, the trial court vide judgment dated 31-8-1985 convicted the respondent for an offence under Sections 302/342 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The co-accused of the appellant Hamid was convicted for an offence under Sections 302/114, 342 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On their appeal against conviction and sentence, while the High Court vide judgment dated 10-4-1992 acquitted the co-convict of the appellant Hamid, it convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 304 (Part II) Indian Penal Code, besides maintaining the conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 342 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. For the offence under Section 304 (Part II) Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default, to undergo one year RI. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, we are satisfied that the evidence of PW 1, PW 4 and PW 5 squarely connects the respondent with the crime. We are also satisfied that the dying declaration recorded by Mr. Umesh Kumar was a voluntary statement of the deceased and it corroborates the ocular testimony. The medical evidence further lends support to the testimony of PW 1, PW 4 and PW 5. In our opinion, the appreciation of evidence by both the courts below is appropriate and we are not persuaded to take a different view insofar as the complicity of the respondent is concerned. The question, however, is about the nature of offence. 3. The medical evidence further lends support to the testimony of PW 1, PW 4 and PW 5. In our opinion, the appreciation of evidence by both the courts below is appropriate and we are not persuaded to take a different view insofar as the complicity of the respondent is concerned. The question, however, is about the nature of offence. 3. The trial court, after examining the evidence opined that since the respondent had caused two injuries to the deceased with the knife, which was later on recovered on his disclosure statement, in the abdomen, he was guilty of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The High Court did not agree and after a critical appraisal of the evidence opined as follows: "It has also come on the record that only two stab wounds were inflicted but no injury was apparently caused on any vital part of the body. These facts clearly belie that the accused had any intention to kill the deceased Maina. At best, it can be said that he intended to cause, bodily injuries on the person of deceased Maina and that knowledge may be attributed to him that such injury is likely to cause death but in no case, it can be said that accused Kalu intended to cause the death of Mst Maina or that he intended to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the lady." 4. The view taken by the High Court appeals to us. From the statement of PW 11, Dr. Prem Narayna who had first examined the deceased, we notice that the two incised wounds suffered by the deceased did not cause any injury to the internal organs. According to PW 11, the injuries suffered by the deceased had not affected the normal functioning of any part of her body and the doctor went on to say "when I examined Mst Maina, at that time, there was no such danger to her life". PW 13, who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body opined that the cause of death was "acute peritonitis" as a result of abdominal injuries. During the cross-examination, PW 13 admitted that "peritonitis" could have set in due to surgical complications also. He did not state that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death by themselves. During the cross-examination, PW 13 admitted that "peritonitis" could have set in due to surgical complications also. He did not state that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death by themselves. The medical evidence, therefore, when analysed in its correct perspective, shows that the finding recorded by the High Court (supra) is correct. In these circumstances, we find that the conviction and sentence of the respondent, as recorded by the High Court for various reasons suffers from no infirmity whatsoever. 5. This appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed.