JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was indicated before the learned Special Judge, SC & ST Prevention of Attrocities Cases Ajmer for the murder of Sadan Lal. Learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment vide judgment dated July 9. 1996. Hence this appeal under section 374(2) Cr.RC. at his instance. 2. The short-facts leading to the conviction need narration- (i) The fateful occurrence took place on October 21, 1993. Around 8.40 p.m. Naresh Chand and Mukesh Chand alongwith their injured father Sadan Lal reached at the Police Station Alwar Gate Ajmer and lodged FIR stating therein that Gauri Shanker (appellant) inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of Sadan Lal. A case under Section 324 and 307 IPC was initially registered and after the death of Sadan Lal on October 22, 1993 the case was converted under Section 302 IPC. (ii) After usual investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant. The case was committed and the learned trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution thereafter examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. In defence as many as four witnesses were examined by the appellant. (iii) After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned trial court convicted the appellant as indicated here in above. 3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, canvassed that FIR in the case was antedated. The statements of the witnesses were not properly considered. The independent witnesses Sunil Soni and Laxmi Narain were not produced. The witnesses Ashok Mishra PW 1, Naresh Sharma PW 3, Mukesh Chand Sharma PW 4 and Udai Singh Chauhan PW 13, are not the witnesses of the actual occurrence and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. Even if the prosecution case is taken as it is no offence under section 302 IPC is exfacie made out as the appellant had not intended to commit murder of Sadan Lal. One simple injury from the sharp edged weapon has been attributed to the appellant and the offence does not travel beyond section 304 Part II. 4. Mr. Even if the prosecution case is taken as it is no offence under section 302 IPC is exfacie made out as the appellant had not intended to commit murder of Sadan Lal. One simple injury from the sharp edged weapon has been attributed to the appellant and the offence does not travel beyond section 304 Part II. 4. Mr. R.S. Agrawal, learned Public Prosecutor per contra coritendd that the material produced by the prosecution are sufficient to hold that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased and the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial Judge. 5. We have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. We proceed to consider the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. PW 1 Ashok Mishra deposed that he has seen Gauri Shanker appellant inflicting knife blow on the stomack of the deceased. PW 2 Sita Ram Sharma is motbir of panchnama of the dead body of the deceased. PW 3 Naresh Sharma is the son of the deceased who narrated eye witnessed account of the incident and deposed that the appellant inflicted knife blow on the stomack of his father. He is also signatory of FIR Ex.P. 5 Subhash Chandra is signatory of site plan Ex.P 6. PW 6 Chain Sukh Sharma is the signatory of recovery memo of knife Ex.R 10 as well as site plan of recovery of knife Ex.P. 11. PW 6 A Laxmi Narain has been declared hostile. PW 7 Sunil Soni has also been declared hostile. PW 8 Shri Krishna Sharma is the signatory of site plan Ex.P 7. PW 9 Ram Niwas is the signatory of recovery memo of knife Ex.P 10 and site plan of knife recovery Ex.R 11. PW 10 Dhanna Singh ASI prepared panchnama of the dead body Ex.R 2 and recovery of clothes of the dead body vide Ex.R 3. PW 11 Girdhari Singh is malkhana in charge, who entered the sealed packets in the malkhana register and handed over them to Hameer Mai Constable for depositing the same to FSL Jaipur. Dr. RK. Sarsawat PW 12, conducted the post mortem of the dead body. PW 13 Udai Singh is the eye witness. He deposed that the appellant inflicted knife blow on the stomack of the deceased. PW 14 Hameer Mai deposited two packets with the FSL Jaipur. Dr. RK. Sarsawat PW 12, conducted the post mortem of the dead body. PW 13 Udai Singh is the eye witness. He deposed that the appellant inflicted knife blow on the stomack of the deceased. PW 14 Hameer Mai deposited two packets with the FSL Jaipur. PW 15 Pooran Prakash Gaur conducted investigation of the case. 7. DW 1 Suresh Chandra Sharma stated that he did not see the appellant inflicting knife blow on the person of deceased Sadan Lal. DW 2 Mukesh Sharma deposed that on the day when Sadan Lal died he was present in the shop of Sunil Soni but he did not see Sadan Lal at the shop of his son from 6.00 p.m. till 8.00 p.m. DW 3 Arun Kumar stated that he had gone to house of Prem Shanker on October 27, 1993 on the said day the police did not come to him along with Gauri Shanker and no recovery of knife was affected on the said date. DW 4 Deepak also repeated the same version narrated by Arun Kumar DW 3. 8. Since the factum of death of the deceased owing to the injuries sustained by him was no disputed by the defence the main question that fell for determination is whether the evidence of Naresh Sharma PW 3, Mukesh Chand Sharma PW 4 and Udai Singh Chauhan PW 13 can be relied upon, acceptance of which rested the success of the prosecution. 9. A look at the statements of aforesaid witnesses goes to show that though they were subjected to lengthy cross examination nothing could be elicited from it, which can be helpful to the appellant. Having given our anxious consideration to the evidence of Naresh Sharma PW 3 and the attending circumstances of the case we find no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and we hold that the appellant inflicted knife blow on the person of the deceased. 10. It is necessary at this juncture to find whether offence under section 302 IPC is made out or case would fall under section 304 Part II IPC. According to the post mortem report Ex.R 15 the deceased sustained antemortem stab wound 3 x 1.5 cm. x 2 cm. deep in mid line placed vertically on abdomen 4 cm. in below the umbilious wound in some what spindle shaped with inferior pointed. According to the post mortem report Ex.R 15 the deceased sustained antemortem stab wound 3 x 1.5 cm. x 2 cm. deep in mid line placed vertically on abdomen 4 cm. in below the umbilious wound in some what spindle shaped with inferior pointed. The superior angle is also almost pointed. There is gaping in wound. Two blood streeks of clotted blood present on each side of wound, gang horizontally outward and downward. No internal structure is prolapsing out of the wound. The cause of death was shock due to anterior injury caused before death. The post mortem report was proved by Dr. RS. Sarswat PW 12. 11. In order to bring the case within Clause Thirdly of section 300 IPC it must be proved that there was intention to inflict the particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. In-other words the injury found to be present should be injury that was intended to be inflicted. In the instant case the knife was carried by the appellant in advance and the injury was inflicted with force on a vital part of the body of the deceased. Therefore it can be said that the appellant intended to cause the particular injury. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Though only one injury was caused by the appellant but we are of the considered view that Clause Thirdly of section 300 IPC is attracted as the appellant not only intended to cause particular injury but the injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant came at the spot having a knife in the pocket of his pent and started abusing the deceased and thereafter inflicted knife blow on the stomach. The witness Naresh Chand PW 3, Udai Singh Chauhan PW 13 and Dr. RK. Sarswat were subjected to cross examination, we find that inspite of searching and lengthy cross examination the defence could not succeed in eliciting any answer favourable to it. Judged in that context we do not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve their testimony that they saw the appellant inflicting the injury on the person of deceased. RK. Sarswat were subjected to cross examination, we find that inspite of searching and lengthy cross examination the defence could not succeed in eliciting any answer favourable to it. Judged in that context we do not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve their testimony that they saw the appellant inflicting the injury on the person of deceased. When the testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution is considered along with medical evidence and the FIR, which, contains the substratum of the prosecution case and was lodged with utmost dispatch, the only legitimate inference that can be drawn is that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove that the appellant committed murder of Sadan Lal There learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the statements of the prosecution as well as defence witnesses and we see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge. We are of the considered view that the appellant was rightly convicted for the offence committed by under section 302 IPC. We are unable to pursuade ourselves with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the offence committed by the appellant does not travel beyond section 304 Part II IPC. 12. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. *******