S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20-1- 1988 of the learned Sessions Judge, Panna, passed in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1987, by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable u/section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) IT has not been disputed that injuries were caused to Sukhendra s/o Shankar Kachi (PW 1) on 27-5-1987 near the pond of village Ahirgawn and that on account of the resultant fractures, he had died on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of June, 1987 in the Medical College Hospital, Gwalior. It has also, not been disputed that Narayan Rajgauda (PW 2), Pranudayal Pathak (PW 3), Shivcharan (PW 4) and Ganesh Prasad Mishra (PW 5) are residents of village, Ahirgawn and are acquainted with one another. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Sukhendra sb Shankar Kachi (PW 1) was returning from the village pond after answering the call of nature and while he was proceeding towards the village the appellant-Asharam accosted him and assaulted with a lathi (stick) thus, causing, severe injuries. The injured was brought home by the villagers and he was then taken to the Police Station Brajpur, where report Ex. P1 was lodged by Shankar (PW 1) at 8. 30 a. m. and recorded in the Roznamcha. The injured was rushed to the Government Hospital, Panna and on learning about the fractures having been caused to the injured a case was registered at P. S. Brajpur on 29-5-1987 under Sections 324 and 325 of the IPC and further investigation was made. In the meanwhile, the injured was taken to the hospital at Gwalior, where he succumbed to his injuries on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd June 1987. The inquest was held by Anil Kumar Agrawal (PW 14) at J. A. Hospital, Gwalior, in the presence of witnesses of which memo (Ex. P/14 was prepared. PW 14 Anil Kumar Agrawal then forwarded the dead body for post-mortem alongwith the requisition Ex. P15. ( 4 ) DR. Vijay Kumar Diwan (PW 10) performed the autopsy and on external examination, found a contusion over the head on frontal, parietal and occipital regions a contusion with abrasion on the right leg with fracture of tibia and fibula and an abrasion on the left leg. P15. ( 4 ) DR. Vijay Kumar Diwan (PW 10) performed the autopsy and on external examination, found a contusion over the head on frontal, parietal and occipital regions a contusion with abrasion on the right leg with fracture of tibia and fibula and an abrasion on the left leg. On opening the body the Doctor noticed coagulated blood in the parietal, frontal and occipital regions. There was also fracture of left parietal and temporal bone with depression of the bones. The parietal bone on the right side had been broken into many pieces and had damaged the brain. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem and the injury to the brain was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was on account of comes due to injury to brain and haemorrhage. ( 5 ) THE report of the incident, as stated above, was lodged by PW 1 Shankar Kachi, father of the deceased. In the said report Ex. P 1, he had stated that on account of the fact that the cattle of the accused had damaged the crop of the informant, the cattle had been sent to the pound and enraged by this act, the accused had assaulted the deceased. In this report, he has duly mentioned that Narayan and Prabhudayal alongwith others had rushed to the place of the incident on hearing the alarm raised by the appellant. Narayan and Prabhudayal have been examined by the prosecution as PW2 and PW3. Narayan has stated that his attention was drawn by the alarmraised by the deceased and he witnessed that accused Asharam was assaulting the deceased with a Danda. He had noticed the accused having dealt five blows with a Danda. He has further deposed to the presence of Prabhudayal and others at that time who had all shouted for help. He has further deposed that the deceased was then carried to his house. PW 3 Prabhudayal fully corroborates the testimony of Narayan (PW 2 ). Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of PW 2 Narayan and PW 3 Prabhudayal cannot be relied upon, as although their names find mention in the FIR (Ex. P 1), it has not been stated that any of them disclosed anything about having witnessed the incident to PW 1 Shankar Kachi. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of PW 2 Narayan and PW 3 Prabhudayal cannot be relied upon, as although their names find mention in the FIR (Ex. P 1), it has not been stated that any of them disclosed anything about having witnessed the incident to PW 1 Shankar Kachi. The argument could have had some relevance if PW 2 and PW 3 had admitted having disclosed the incident to the father of the deceased and this fact was not stated in the report. Since basic ingredients of the offence were duly disclosed in FIR (Ex. P1), it was not expected that the father of the deceased would engage in giving a detailed version especially at a time when his son was lying unconscious and the paramount anxiety was to take him to the hospital. It is also seen from the documents on record that the offence was registered by the Police (vide Ex. P 19) only after learning about the nature of the injuries disclosing commission of a cognizable offence on 29-5-1987 and further steps in the investigation were taken and statements of witnesses were recorded. Nothing has been shown to indicate that these eyewitnesses are inimically disposed towards the accused or have any reason to support the case of the informant. The eye-witnesses have been subjected to severe cross- examination but their evidence has remained unshaken. We find that the eye-witness account duly corroborated by the medical evidence clearly establishes that the accused had voluntarily caused injuries, which ultimately resulted into the death of deceased-Sukhendra. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel has next argued that the incident as per the prosecution case arose out of a trivial dispute with regard to the poundage of the cattle of the accused and the nature of the injuries caused and the weapon used, do not establish that the appellant had intended to cause the death of the deceased. According to the learned Counsel, at best an intention to cause grievous injury to the deceased can be inferred. ( 7 ) FROM the testimony of Doctor PW 10, it is amply borne out that the injuries were inflicted on a vital part viz, the head and were indicted with sufficient force causing fracture of parietal and temporal bones pieces whereof had penetrated into the brain. ( 7 ) FROM the testimony of Doctor PW 10, it is amply borne out that the injuries were inflicted on a vital part viz, the head and were indicted with sufficient force causing fracture of parietal and temporal bones pieces whereof had penetrated into the brain. It is thus, quite clear from the part of the body chosen and the force applied in infliction of the injury that the accused had a clear intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Thus, considering the fact that the victim died after about five days of the incident, from the injury inflicted by the accused, the prosecution has clearly established the intention of the accused of causing such injuries were likely to cause death. Although intention to cause death cannot be inferred from the act of the accused in the light of the trivial nature of the dispute which led to the said incident and the weapon namely the stick used in inflicting the injury the force applied by the accused gives unmistakable indication that the accused inflicted the injuries as were likely to cause death had in fact by his such act, caused the death of Sukhendra. The case of the accused would thus fall u/section 304-1 of the I PC. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the accused is in jail since 23-6-1987 and has already undergone more than ten years imprisonment. Considering that the accused has already undergone more than ten years imprisonment, while setting aside the conviction of the accused u/section 302 of the IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment passed by the Trial Court, the accused is held guilty for an offence punishable u/section 304-1 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of ten years which he has already undergone. ( 9 ) THE appeal is thus partly allowed. The appellant (accused) shall be set at liberty if not required in connection with any other matter. Appeal allowed partly. .