JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 155/94 on April 22, 1996. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for that offence. 2. The prosecution story, stated in brief, is that on November 8, 1994 at about 12 noon & first information report was lodged wherein it was averred by witness Sohan Singh that at about 8.30 in the morning when he was going to his field he heard commotion from the house of Shanker Singh the accused. When he went there he saw that his brother Jeth Singh was lying on the road outside the house of Shanker Singh .and was bleeding in his head. Hallu Singh, father in-law of Jeth Singh was trying to lift him. Hallu Singh told Sohan Singh that Shanker Singh came out of his house with a stick and hit Jeth Singh on his head by which blow Jeth Singh fell to the ground and after Jeth Singh fell on the ground two more blows were given by Shanker Singh on his head, in pursuance of this first information report investigation was conducted by the police and challan was filed prosecuting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses who proved certain documents, on appreciation of which documentary and oral evidence the learned Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code. Of the 12 witnesses examined by the prosecution only Hallu Singh, father in- law of the deceased Jeth Singh is the eye witness and rest proved the attending circumstances and appreciation of which led the learned Sessions Judge to record the finding of conviction. Hallu Singh RW. 2 has given a very detailed description of the incident as it occurred. Of the 12 witnesses examined by the prosecution only Hallu Singh, father in- law of the deceased Jeth Singh is the eye witness and rest proved the attending circumstances and appreciation of which led the learned Sessions Judge to record the finding of conviction. Hallu Singh RW. 2 has given a very detailed description of the incident as it occurred. This witness states that when he along with his son-in-law Jeth Singh were going, Jeth Singh was walking ahead of Hallu Singh when Shanker Singh came out of his house and gave a stick blow on the head of Jeth Singh due to which he fell on the ground and after he fell on the ground two more blows were given to the fallen Jeth Singh by the accused and the head injury started bleeding and Jeth Singh became unconscious. He then states that hearing the commotion Babu Singh first came on the site followed by Dau Singh and then Sohan Singh. The witness narrated the entire incident to Sohan Singh in presence of Babu Singh and Dau Singh. In his cross-examination the witness has given the reason for being present at the time of the commission of the offence at the place where it was committed. He stated that he had come to call upon a bereaved family in village Chatar Pura. There is nothing in the cross examination of Hallu Singh even to suggest that the accused did not assault the deceased. 4. In so far as the averments made by witness Hallu Singh RW. 2 are concerned, they have been corroborated on all material particulars by the witnesses named by him RW. 1 Sohan Singh states in his deposition that he heard commotion from the house of Shanker Singh and, therefore, when he went there he saw his brother Jeth Singh lying injured and his father-in-law told him that the injury has been caused by Shanker. RW. 3 is Dau Singh who also corroborates RW. 2 and states that Hallu Singh told him that Shanker has hit Jeth Singh on his head. RW. 3 is Dau Singh who also corroborates RW. 2 and states that Hallu Singh told him that Shanker has hit Jeth Singh on his head. There is thus a clear and cogent evidence on record of Hallu Singh who witnesses the assault on Jeth Singh by Shanker accused and immediately disclosed the occurrence to the brother of the deceased Jeth Singh in presence of two other witnesses who came on the scene of occurrence immediately thereafter, the cross-examination of all the three witnesses is wholly inconsequential. P.W. 4 Nathu Singh is a panch witness who subscribe to the Panchanama of the dead body and other documents prepared and executed by the police on the site of the crime. P.W. 5 Babu Singh is another witness who arrived at the scene of occurrence after he heard the shoutings and who was told by Hallu Singh that Jeth Singh had been hit on his head by the accused Shanker Singh, the accused. He also corroborates what has been stated by Hallu Singh. He was witness to the recovery of lathi from the house of Shanker Singh. P.W. 6 Dudh Singh is another neighbour of accused Shanker who came on the scene of offence after hearing the shoutings and was told by Hallu Singh that Shanker hit Jeth Singh on his head. It will thus be seen that the testimony of the sole eye witness has been substantially corroborated on all material particulars by the persons who came on the scene of offence immediately after the occurrence and heard Hallu Singh giving report of the incident to the brother of the deceased and have deposed accordingly. P.W. 10 Dr. B.L. Malvi who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased deposes that the injury caused on the head of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the deceased Jeth Singh met homicidal death and the accused being responsible for causing death of Jeth Singh was guilty of murder as defined in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Arguing the appeal it was streneously contended by Shri Suresh Kumbhat that the sole eye witness being interested in the case due to his relationship with the deceased, is liable to be discarded as there is no other eye witness account of the incident. 5. Arguing the appeal it was streneously contended by Shri Suresh Kumbhat that the sole eye witness being interested in the case due to his relationship with the deceased, is liable to be discarded as there is no other eye witness account of the incident. There is nothing on the record, according to the learned counsel, of any motive and the possibility of existence of certain provocation also cannot be ruled out. There is, therefore no case for conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In the alternate it was submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that even if the prosecution is accepted to be correct, no case is made out for conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel only a single stick blow was delivered by the accused on the head of the deceased and there being no evidence of any motive, any sudden provocation will have to be inferred from the circumstances attending and, therefore, a case covered by exception (iv) as, quoted in Section 299, I.P.C. Relying on decision in Sulaiman K. v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1998(1) Crimes 414 it was argued by the learned counsel that the circumstances of the case are such are required inference of sudden provocation there by taking away the case from the scope of murder into the realm of homicidal death not amounting to murder. We are unable to appreciate this part of the arguments of the learned counsel for the reason that the injury caused is obviously serious and it was intended to cause death. There is no other evidence on record to infer motive or intention and sudden provocation is required to be inferred. We are of the opinion that no error of law or of fact is committed by the learned Judge in coming to the finding of guilt against the accused appellant. We hereby affirm the judgment of conviction of guilt as also the judgment of sentence given by the learned Judge against the accused appellant. 7. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******