JUDGMENT Chitre, J. -- 1. The appellant is hereby taking exceptions to the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by Addl. Sessions Judge, Dewas (Camp Kannod) in Sessions Trial No. 161/90 whereby he had convicted the appellant for committing murders of his brother Ramprasad and his nephew Anantram on 22.5.90 at about 12.00 noon in village Kolari. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for murder of both Ramprasad and Anantram separately, with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo RI for six months. Both substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case in brief can be enumerated as mentioned hereunder: The appellant and deceased Ramprasad happen to be real brothers and they were residing near each other. On the date of incident at the time of incident appellant Ramlal went to cut the tree in front of their house but deceased Ramprasad prohibited him. Appellant Ramlal told him that he would be cutting' tree and there was bickering between deceased Ramprasad and appellant Ramlal. On account of that as per prosecution case the appellant Ramlal picked up a wooden stick and gave a blow on the head of deceased Ramprasad which caused him an injury on the head and finally it resulted in his death. When his son Anantram came to intervene, the appellant also gave him a blow of the same stick on the head which resulted in injury to the head which resulted in instantaneous death of Anantram on the spot. This incident was witnessed by prosecution witnesses Jainarayan, Dulari and Sagnabai, Dulari happens to be daughter of deceased Ramprasad and sister of Anantram. However, Sugnabai happens to be wife of Anantram. 3. FIR was lodged in the police station by Jainarayan, Ramprasad died in the way. The appellant was charge sheeted and tried before learned trial Judge. Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record passed the order of conviction and sentence mentioned above which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 4. Shri Verma, counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses has been erroneously believed by the learned trial Judge and, therefore, he erred in passing the order of conviction and sentence against appellant He urged it to be set aside and appellant be acquitted. 4. Shri Verma, counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses has been erroneously believed by the learned trial Judge and, therefore, he erred in passing the order of conviction and sentence against appellant He urged it to be set aside and appellant be acquitted. In the alternative Shri Verma submitted tl1at the sentence be altered from S 302 IPC to S. 304 either part I or part II IPC in case of both the murders Shri Desai. Govt. Advocate justified the impugned order of conviction and sentence by pointing out that the evidence of prosecution witnesses Jainarayan, Dulari and Sugnabai has not been shattered at all. He submitted further that their evidence has been well corroborated by medical evidence as well as by evidence of other prosecution witnesses. 5. We up hold the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial Judge by dismissing the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reasons as here under: The FIR was lodged by Jainarayan and it mentions that besides him, prosecution witnesses Dulari and Sugnabai had witnessed the said incident Jainarayan has been rightly believed by the trial Judge because Jainarayan had stated the truth and nothing but the truth. Had he been interested in telling the falsehood, he would have also told in his evidence that he witnessed the assault on deceased Ramprasad but he did not tell that He categorically stated in his evidence that he did not witness the assault on Ramprasad by appellant Ramlal which was prior to the assault on deceased Anantram. Both Dulari and Sugnabai had stated in their evidence that firstly the appellant assaulted deceased Ramprasad and when Anantram came for intervention, ho was also assaulted by appellant Ramlal on the head. Thus, evidence of these three witnesses is consistent with each other and consistent with FIR the earliest document. 6. Shri Verma submitted that it has come in the evidence of Sugnabai that the said incident was witnessed by herself and Jainarayan. He submitted further that PW Dulari has not mentioned name of Sugnabai as eye witnesses. It is pertinent to note here that it has come in the evidence of PW Sugnabai that she witnessed the said incident like PW Dulari. It is the evidence of PW Jainaravan that in addition to him, said incident was witnesses by Both Dulari and Sugnabai. It is pertinent to note here that it has come in the evidence of PW Sugnabai that she witnessed the said incident like PW Dulari. It is the evidence of PW Jainaravan that in addition to him, said incident was witnesses by Both Dulari and Sugnabai. It is possible that Sugnabai might not have seen Dulari witnessing the said incident or might have omitted her name while giving evidence in the Court. It is pertinent to note that names of both Sugnabai and Dulari have been mentioned in FIR the earliest document. 7. It is to be noted that when the witness comes to the Court he gets bewildered by the Court's atmosphere and in the confused mood, he is susceptible to commit mistake on the minor counts. What the Court has to do is to examine he evidence carefully and if that evidence is consistent and leaves no doubt that evidence has to be accepted. If the evidence is suffering inherent infirmities and not creating the confidence in the judicial minds that has to be discarded. In the present case we do not see any ground for discarding the evidence of PW Jainarayan, Dulari and Sugnabai which is consistent with each other and consistent with FIR so far as the core of the evidence is concerned. Variance at fringes have to be ignored. It is important to note that this evidence has been corroborated by medical evidence brought on record through the doctors -- Dr. Umesh Saxena, Dr. Ramesh Vaidhya and Dr. Ravindra Choudhary. Dr. Choudhary performed post-mortem examination in respect of the dead body of deceased Ramprasad and Dr. Umesh Saxena performed post-mortam examination in respect of dead body of Ananatram. Bith the doctors noted that there was an injury on the heads of both Ramprasad and Anantram. Depressed fractures of the skulls had been sustained to both the deceased. Ramprasad had three fractures on head bone and Anantram had a depressed fracture coupled with injury to brain. The blood was collected in the skull cavity. This evidence of Dr. Choudhary and Dr. Saxena is landing corroboration to the evidence of Jainarayan, Dulari and Sugnabai. 8. Prosecution examined one Jagdish for the purpose of bringing the evidence in respect of extra judicial confession given by the appellant. The blood was collected in the skull cavity. This evidence of Dr. Choudhary and Dr. Saxena is landing corroboration to the evidence of Jainarayan, Dulari and Sugnabai. 8. Prosecution examined one Jagdish for the purpose of bringing the evidence in respect of extra judicial confession given by the appellant. According to his evidence the appellant demanded money from him and when he asked to him as to why he was demanding money, he had told him that he had assaulted his brother Ramprasad. The trial Judge has not given much importance to his evidence and rightly so. According to us his evidence can be ignored also because it appears to be improbable and unnatural. Besides this witness PW Jagram, Shankar also lends corroboration to evidence of PW Jainarayan, Dulari and Sugnabai. Dr. Chaudhary's evidence lends corroboration to the evidence of Dr. Vaidya and Dr. Saxena in addition to the evidence of Jainarayan, Dulari and Sugnabai. It is his evidence that he medically examined deceased Ramprasad when Ramprasad was brought to him by police. 9. The evidence of Sugnabli is not shettered at all. In fact the evidence Of Sugnabai had gone as if unchallenges. We do not find any reason as to why this witness should falsely implicate Ramlal in the charge of committing two murders. The evidence of these witnesses is consistent with each other and gave corroboration to the core of the prosecution case. Learned trial Judge has rightly discussed the evidence of these witnesses and after careful and cautious approach, accepted it. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Verma submitted that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under S. 304 and not under S. 302 of IPC, because if the prosecution evidence is to be believed, the appellant had given one blow each to each deceased. We do not accept this argument because blow or blows cannot be only the criteria for the purpose of judging the nature of the offence committed by the accused. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea has to be kept in mind. The act simplicitor has not to be viewed only, but the intention behind it has to be given due importance. The intention has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and the way in which the blow or blows has/have been given by the accused become pertinent. The act simplicitor has not to be viewed only, but the intention behind it has to be given due importance. The intention has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and the way in which the blow or blows has/have been given by the accused become pertinent. In this case though appellant gave one blow each to each deceased, the blow was with all force. Even single blow was sufficient to cause depressed skull fracture of each of the deceased. Not only that, it caused the injury to the brain also and there was collection of the blood in the skull cavity. Anantram died instantaneously. Deceased Ramprasad sustained three head fractures. The stick which was used by appellant was also sufficiently significant as weapon of the assault. The injuries caused by each blow speak by itself of the force. Therefore, one single blow was sufficient to cause death of each of the deceased by itself. 11. It is pertinent to note that after assaulting Ramprasad the appellant did not stop, but assaulted Anantram when he intervened. Learned counsel Shri Verma submitted that the said act was committed by the appellant on account of provocation given by Ramprasad. He called it as grave and sudden provocation. We do not accept that. It was not grave and sudden provocation at all. On the contrary it is spelled out the motive for assaulting both Ramprasad and Anantram. That spelled out the motive for assaulting Ramprasad. When Anantram came for rescuing his father, the appellant Ramlal gave him a blow on the head which resulted in his death instantaneously. The appellant had sufficient time and opportunity to pick up the portion of the body for the purpose of assault. He picked up the head of both Ramprasad and Anantram as target for striking the blows. The fractures caused by each blow tell about the force in which each blow was given. It speaks of nothing also but intention to cause such bodily injuries to each of them which would in the ordinary course of nature cause death of human being. The offence which has been committed by the appellant is murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 12. It is true that the said incident took place on account of act of deceased Ramprasad prohibiting appellant Ramlal from cutting tree. The offence which has been committed by the appellant is murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 12. It is true that the said incident took place on account of act of deceased Ramprasad prohibiting appellant Ramlal from cutting tree. Therefore, his sentence of imprisonment for life for each murder would be justified. Otherwise it would have been something also than the lesser sentence. The prosecution has also not challenged the order of sentence. 13. Thus, summing up all we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is correct, proper and legal. We do not find any need of either setting it aside or modifying it. Thus, in the result the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant to undergo the sentence passed against him by the trial Court in appropriate jail.