JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Ram Swaroop faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra in Case No. 107/95, who by his Judgment and Order dated 3.9.96 convicted him for the offences under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are, that on 1.9.95 at 8.30 a.m., PW 7 Chaturbhuj submitted a written report (Ex.P 10) to Arjun Singh, SHO Police Station Chhabra, District Baran alleging that on that day at about 5.30-6.00 a.m. his uncle Shyam Lal Dhimar (deceased) as usual had gone to answer the call of nature towards the river, which flows near village Bamora, that after easing himself when he was going in the way just near the temple of Hanumanji Ram Swaroop (Appellant) dealt repeated axe blows on Shyam Lal, who fell down and died on the spot. Chaturbhuj further alleged that the &aid incident was witnessed by Laxmi Narayan (PW 1), Mohan Lal (PW 5) and Nathulal Dhakar (PW 6). He also mentioned in his report Ex.P 10 that after hearing the hue and cry when he came running to the place of incident, he found thaj Shyam Lal had already succumbed to his injuries and the appellant with the axe had fled away towards his house. He further alleged that the appellant bore enemity with the deceased regarding an old dispute for growing vegetable crops in the Bari. The said SHO drew the formal FIR Exb P11 and rushed to the place of incident He reached there on the same day at about 9.20 a.m. He inspected the site and observed that the dead body of Shyam Lal was lying on the way leading to the river Mahudl Ghata just in front of Hanuman temple and that the blood which had soozed out from the injuries of the deceased was lying scattered nearby. He prepared the site plan Ex.P 2 and inquest report Ex.P 1. The sample of blood stained soil and control sample were also lifted from the spot, which were seized and sealed in different packets vide seizure memoes Ex.R 3 & Ex.P 4 respectively. 3. PW 9 Dr. He prepared the site plan Ex.P 2 and inquest report Ex.P 1. The sample of blood stained soil and control sample were also lifted from the spot, which were seized and sealed in different packets vide seizure memoes Ex.R 3 & Ex.P 4 respectively. 3. PW 9 Dr. Kunj Behari Sharma, l/C Medical Officer, Government Hospital Chhabra conducted the medico legal autopsy of the deceased and vide post mortem examination report (Ex.P 13) found the following external injuries: (i) incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on the left arm, obliquely placed; (ii) incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on the left side of neck, obliquely placed; (iii) incised wound 4 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm on the left sub- mandibular region of neck; (iv) incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the left auricular region, obliquely placed; (v) incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the left Infra clavicular region of chest, obliquely placed; (vi) incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the right Infra- clavicular region of chest; (vii) incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1/2cm anteriorly on the middle of neck ⅓rd region in transversed direction; (viii) incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm on the left scapular region obliquely placed; (ix) incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm on the back side of neck in transverse position; (x) incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1/2cm on the left side of temporal region, obliquely placed. On dissection, the doctor found a fracture 1 cm x 1 cm on the left temporal region. Blood was present in left temporal area and there was laceration 1 cm x 1 cm x 1/2cm on the left temporal area. He also found a fracture in the 2nd and 3rd cartilege of both sides. There was laceration on posterior surface of lung 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. The left common carbid artery was also cut. 4. He also found a fracture in the 2nd and 3rd cartilege of both sides. There was laceration on posterior surface of lung 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. The left common carbid artery was also cut. 4. All the above mentioned injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the doctor opined that the cause of death was due to the head injury as well as excessive blood loss with destruction of left lung giving rise to stoppage of heart action. The blood stained shirt aNd dhoti of the deceased were seized and sealed vide seizure memo Ex.P 7. 5. The appellant was arrested on the same day vide arrest memo Ex.P. 8. It is alleged that the appellant in pursuance to his voluntary information Ex.P 14 got recovered a blood stained axe concealed under a heap of dung in his house vide recovery memo Ex.P 5. The sealed packets of the blood stained garments of the deceased also the sealed packets containing axe, blood stained soil & control sample were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur but the report of the FSL was not filed. After completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra, who in turn committed the case to the learned trial Judge. 6. The appellant was charged for the offence under section 302 IPC. He denied the indictment and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC. denied all the circumstances appearing against him and claimed that he was illegally against him and claimed that he was illegally arrested, that he is innocent and that the prosecution witness deposed falsely as they bore enemity against his family. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 7. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC. denied all the circumstances appearing against him and claimed that he was illegally against him and claimed that he was illegally arrested, that he is innocent and that the prosecution witness deposed falsely as they bore enemity against his family. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 7. The learned trial Judge held that the homicidal death of the deceased was well proved, and that the injuries sustained by him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death He further held that the alleged eye witness PW 5 Mohan Lal Khati, who was declared hostile, did not support the prosecution case, that from the testimony of informant PW 7 Chaturbhuj and eye-witness Laxmi Narayan and Nathu Lal, it was well established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had inflicted the aforesaid injuries by an axe to the deceased and committed his murder. The learned trial Judge also held that there are minor contradictions and improvements in the testimony of these witnesses but those are not fatal to the prosecution case. He also held that since the prosecution did not file the report of the State FSL. the alleged recovery of axe at the instance of the appellant was meaning less. He therefore, vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard Shri S.L. Songara, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.S. Agarwal, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the trial court in extenso. 9. Shri Songara strenuously canvassed that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which is a post investigation document. He pointed out that the FIR Ex.P 11 was also sent to the Magistrate with undue delay, which has not been explained and this makes the prosecution case doubtful. We do not find any force and substance in this argument. The incident took place on 1st September, 1995 at about 5.30-6.00 a.m. in village Bamora, which is situated at a distance of about 6 Km. from Police Station Chhabra. PW 7 Chaturbhuj, who is the nephew of the deceased is an illiterate person. He deposed that immediately after the occurrence, he went to the police station, where he submitted written report Ex.P 10). from Police Station Chhabra. PW 7 Chaturbhuj, who is the nephew of the deceased is an illiterate person. He deposed that immediately after the occurrence, he went to the police station, where he submitted written report Ex.P 10). He categorically denied the suggestion that in the first instance he had orally informed the SHO about the incident and that thereafter he had returned to village Bamora and consulting Manoj Bhargava and Laxmi Narayan had submitted the written report Ex.P 10. He stated that he reached the police station at about 7-8 a.m. and that the police had arrived on the place of incident on the same day at about 9.00 a.m. He told that the SHO after reaching the place of occurrence had written one report. PW 10, Arjun Singh deposed that after inspecting the place of incident he had prepared the site plan and memo thereof (Ex.P 2) as also the inquest report Ex.P 1, and seizure memos Ex.P 3 & P 4. Chaturbhuj is illiterate and rustic. It appears that he has referred about the documents, which were prepared by the SHO in his presence on the spot and from his above statement by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that the SHO had written report Ex.P 10 after reaching the place of incident because admittedly report Ex.P 10 has not been scribed by him. PW 7 Chaturbhuj further stated that he also got one report scribed in the village against the mother of the appellant, who had threatened to get him murdered, about 8-15 days of the alleged incident. The statement of Chaturbhuj has been corroborated by PW 10 Arjun Singh, who deposed that the former had submitted written report Ex.P.10 before him at the Police Station on 1.9.95 at 8.30 p.m. whereupon he had drawn a normal FIR Ex.P 11 and rushed to the spot. FIR Ex.P 11 was received by the Magistrate on 1.9.95 at 3 p.m. A perusal of the information memo Ex.P 14 and the recovery memo of the axe Ex.P 5 clearly reveal that those documents were prepared by the SHO on 1.9.95 at 4.00 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. respectively, which clearly shows that when the Magistrate received the FIR Ex.P 11 the investigation officer was still conducting investigation in village Bamora. No suggestion was put to PW 10 Arjun Singh SHO that written report Ex.P 10 and FIR P 11 are post investigation documents. On the contrary a suggestion was put to him that the informant had come to the police station at 4.00 a.m. on 1.9.95 but he (SHO) did not register the report till 8.30 a.m. This reflects the hollowness of the contention raised by Shri Songara. There is not a fringe of evidence to establish that in fact written report Ex.P 10 was not submitted by Chaturbhuj on the day of incident at police station at 8.30 a.m. or that the same was lodged by him afterwards and that the FIR Ex.P 11 is a post investigation document. In such circumstances, the case of Girdhari & Others v. The State of Rajasthan (1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 345) and State of Punjab v. Tarlok Singh ( AIR 1971 SC 1221 ) cited by Shri Songara render little assistance to the appellant because the facts of those cases are clearly distinguishable. In our considered opinion, in the instant case the FIR was promptly lodged and there was no undue or abnormal delay in dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate. 10. The next thrust of argument of Shri Songara is that the alleged eye witness have not revealed the true and correct version of the incident, that they have suppressed the genesis and origin of the incident and that there statements are also replete with material discrepancies, inconsistencies and improvements. Thus the statement of the eye witness do not disclose the clear picture of the incident and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt and his conviction deserves to be set aside. 11. As per FIR the alleged incident was witnessed by Laxmi Narayan Brahman (PW 1), Mohan Lal Khati (PW 5) and Nathu Lal Dhakar (PW 6) and by the time informant Chaturbhuj reached the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry, Shyam Lal had already breathed his last due to the axe injuries sustained by him. Thus Chaturbhuj was not an eye witness as per version disclosed in written report Ex.P 10 and FIR Ex.P 11. However, Chaturbhuj has unsuccessfully tried to improve his statement during trial. Thus Chaturbhuj was not an eye witness as per version disclosed in written report Ex.P 10 and FIR Ex.P 11. However, Chaturbhuj has unsuccessfully tried to improve his statement during trial. He stated that on the ill fated day at about 6.00 a.m. he was at his house, that he heard the alarm raised by Shyam Lal, that thereupon he went to the place of occurrence, where he saw that the appellant was inflicting an axe blow on the chest of Shyam Lal and that Nathu Lal, Laxmi Narayan etc. had already assembled there. He further stated that he immediately went to lodge the report at police station Chhabra and that when he came back to the village Laxmi Narayan had informed him that the brother and mother of appellant Ram Swaroop had taken out the axe from the chest of the deceased and that thereafter both of them had gone away to their house. When he was confronted with potion A to B of his police statement Ex.D. 3, wherein he had stated that by the time he had reached the place of incident after hearing hue and cry, Shyam Lal had already expired due to axe injuries sustained by him, he simply denied the same and failed to give any explanation. In our considered opinion this witness has unsuccessfully tried to become an eye witness during trial and we are not going to believe this part of his statement. Apparently Chaturbhuj is not an eye witness of the incident. 12. PW 1 Laxmi Narayan Brahman, aged 33 years, deposed that on 1.9.95 at about 6.00 a.m. he was going towards the river for answering the call of nature, that in the way he met appellant Ram Swaroop, who was having an axe going towards the temple of Hanumanji. He stated that thereafter he went towards the river where he saw Shyam Lal easing out there, that after some time Shyam Lal got up and went away towards the village and that immediately thereafter he heard the hue and cry. Thereupon he got up and came running towards the place of occurrence, where he saw that appellant Ram Swaroop was inflicting axe blows to Shyam Lal, that the appellant had also put one of his legs on the chest of the former. Thereupon he got up and came running towards the place of occurrence, where he saw that appellant Ram Swaroop was inflicting axe blows to Shyam Lal, that the appellant had also put one of his legs on the chest of the former. He further stated that at that time Nathu Lal also come there and accosting the appellant had asked him as to whether he would kill Shyam Lal. He deposed that after inflicting axe blows the appellant ran away leaving that axe on the chest of the deceased. He told that he also raised an alarm. After some time appellant's brother Kailash came there and picked up that axe from the chest of the deceased and went away and that Shyam Lal, who had become unconscious had breathed his last. He deposed that at about 9-10 a.m. police had arrived at the place of incident. He has proved the inquest report Ex. P.1, site plan Ex.P.2 and seizure memoes of blood stained soil and control soil Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively. This witness has been examined at length but his testimony has remained unshattered. We do not find any material or substantial improvement or inconsistency in his statement. His presence at the time of incident was also quite natural, which stands corroborated by the testimony of other eye witnesses. Moreover his name as an eye witness also finds mention in the FIR, which was promptly lodged. He is a reliable witness. 13. PW 5 Mohan Lal Khati has been declared hostile, as he stated that he did not witness the incident and completely resiled from his police statement Ex.P.9. However, he has proved the site plan Ex.P.2, inquest report Ex.P.1, and seizure memo Ex.P.7 of blood stained garments of the deceased, arrest memo of the appellant Ex.P.8 and recovery memo of the axe Ex.P.5. The learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the testimony of this in respect of the incident. 14. PW 6 Nathu Lal Dhakar, aged 60 years is an independent witness. He has fully corroborated the testimony of PW 1 Laxmi Narain. The learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the testimony of this in respect of the incident. 14. PW 6 Nathu Lal Dhakar, aged 60 years is an independent witness. He has fully corroborated the testimony of PW 1 Laxmi Narain. He deposed that in the morning he was taking his herd of she buffaloes towards the river, at that time Shyam Lal was coming from the river, at that time Shyam Lal was coming from the river side after answering the call of nature and that when the latter reached near Hanuman Temple, appellant Ram Swaroop dealt an axe blow on his neck, whereupon Shyam Lal fell down. He further deposed that thereafter appellant repeatedly inflicted axe- blows on the chest and back of the deceased, that by that time he as well as Nathu Lal and Laxmi Narayan had also reached there and that thereafter appellant fled away. He stated that his mother and Kailash, the brother of the appellant, came there, that Kailash had picked up the axe from the chest of the deceased and that appellant's mother had taken away the said axe. He was confronted with some contradictions and omissions in his police statement Ex.D. 2, which in our considered opinion are neither material nor significant. He categorically denied the suggestion that he alongwith Laxmi Narayan have falsely implicated the appellant. He stated that the police had recorded his statement on the next day of the incident, while his police statement Ex.D. 2 was recorded on 3.9.95. In our opinion this discrepancy is quite immaterial as this witness is also illiterate and a rustic person. 15. It is well crystallised principle of appreciation of evidence that undue importance should not be given to minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observations should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witnesses, the proper course is to ignore the fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witness now a days go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The court, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether, if they are otherwise trust worthy. 16. Unnecessary and undue importance should not be given to minor discrepancies, insignificant improvements and immaterial contradictions appearing in the statement of witnesses. By and large a witness can not be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident, because it is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties, therefore, can not be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. Besides that the powers of observation varies from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one persons mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. By and large people can not accurately recall a conversion and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. In regard to the exact time of an incident or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one can not expect to make people very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person. Ordinarily a witness can not be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events, which take place in rapid succession with mathematical precision. And one can not expect to make people very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person. Ordinarily a witness can not be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events, which take place in rapid succession with mathematical precision. A witness is liable to got confused or mixed up when interrogated later on. A witness, though wholly truthful is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding the sequence of events or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub conscious mind of the witness sometimes co-operates on account of fear of looking foolish on being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. For this reliance is placed on the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1983 SC 753 .) 17. Having carefully scanned and scrutinised the testimony of eve witnesses PW 1 Laxmi Narayan and PW 6 Natnu Lal, who are independent witnesses, and whose presence ai the time and place of incident was quite natural, we are of the considered view that the minor and immaterial discrepancies in their statement do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case and that these witnesses are reliable witnesses and from their statement -it stands well proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Ram Swaroop had inflicted repeated axe blows to the deceased causing multiple injuries which proved fatal. 18. The testimony of these witnesses find due corroboration from the testimony of PW 9 Dr. Kunju Behari Sharma, who has proved the post mortem examination report Ex.P.13 and deposed that all the injuries sustained by Shyam Lal were ante mortem in nature and that those were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 19. Shri Songara has placed reliance on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Pabudhan Singh & Another (1976 Cr.L.R. (SC) 157) . In that case two eye-witnesses had given different versions at different stages. It was an appeal against the acquittal. 19. Shri Songara has placed reliance on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Pabudhan Singh & Another (1976 Cr.L.R. (SC) 157) . In that case two eye-witnesses had given different versions at different stages. It was an appeal against the acquittal. The Apex Court held that if was unsafe to rely upon the testimony of these eye witnesses and confirmed the acquittal. Apparently such are not the facts of the case in hand. Hence this case do not help the appellant at all. 20. The next case relied upon by Shri Songara is Luna Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan (RLW 1995(1) (Raj.) 65 ), wherein the prosecution case was that when a strayed Camel was being taken to the cattle pond, the trouble ensued. The deceased persons were attacked with lathis and fodder-lifter (Jai). The eye witness deposed that the Jai had caused injury through the body, but this assertion was belied by the medical evidence as there was no punctured wound. Moreover there were several material discrepancies in the statements of other prosecution witnesses. It was held that the prosecution evidence did not disclose any clear picture of the incident, that the evidence was scanty. Therefore benefit of doubt was given to the appellants and their convictions were set aside. Apparently the facts of the case on hand are at poles apart. Therefore, Luna Rams case also does not come to the rescue of the appellant. 21. Shri Songara next relied upon the case of Gujar Mal & Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997 WLC (Raj.) UC 162) . In that case the incident occurred on 5.10.92 at 7.30 a.m. while the FIR was sent to the police station at 10.30 on 7.10.92. This delay in despatch of FIR was not well explained. The circumstances, were indicative of the fact that either the alleged eye witness was not alleged evidence or that manner of occurrence was not being revealed truely. In such circumstances it was held that those infirmities made the prosecution case doubtful and the accused were given benefit of doubt. We do not find any such infirmity in the instant case. Therefore, the second argument advanced by Shri Songara is against record and the same is hereby repelled. 22. In such circumstances it was held that those infirmities made the prosecution case doubtful and the accused were given benefit of doubt. We do not find any such infirmity in the instant case. Therefore, the second argument advanced by Shri Songara is against record and the same is hereby repelled. 22. Shri Songara then asserted that there was delay of three days in recording the police statements of eye witnesses Laxmi Narayan and Nathu Lal and that this delay has not been explained and. therefore, statement of these witnesses deserve to be discarded. He has cited State of M.P v. Amar Singh, ( AIR 1994 SC 650 ). In that case a police constable was alleged to have been abducted and murdered by the appellant. Another constable PW 4 Ram Chander was also abducted by the appellant but he escaped and reached Madhoganj police station on 8.1.76 and informed the incident to the police but his statement was recorded only on 9.1.76. No explanation was given for the delay in recording his statement. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 364 IPC but the M.P. High Court acquitted him. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Apex Court and it was held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-respondent and his acquittal was affirmed. But in the instant case the statements of informant PW 1 Chaturbhuj and eye-witness Mohan Lal were record on 1.9.95 and the statements of Laxmi Narayan and Nathu Lal were recorded on the 3rd day i.e. 3.9.95. Laxmi Narayan stated that the police had examined him on the next day of the incident. Since the initial version of the prosecution story finds mention in the police statements of Chaturbhuj and Mohan Lal, which were recorded on 1.9.95 and the same version finds mention in the statements of PW 1 Laxmi Narayan and PW 6 Nathu Lal, wo do not find any valid and sufficient ground to disbelieve the testimony of these two eyewitnesses-simply on the ground that their statements were recorded on 3.9.95. Moreover the facts of Amar Singhs case (cited supra) are clearly distinguishable Hence this argument also fails. 23. Moreover the facts of Amar Singhs case (cited supra) are clearly distinguishable Hence this argument also fails. 23. The next plank of argument of Shri Songara is that as per post mortem examination report Ex.P.13, the doctor had found undigested food articles in the stomach and the small intestine of the deceased, which indicate that the death of the deceased had taken place in the early hours of the night intervening 31.8.95 and 1.9.95. Therefore, I apparent that the prosecution has suppressed the exact time of the incident and suppressed material facts and has not come out with clear story. We are not at all impressed by this argument. Firstly, the doctor in his post mortem examination report Ex.P.13 has specifically mentioned that he had conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased 1.9.95 at 12.15 p.m. and that the probable time of death was six hours, which works to about 6.00 a.m. and is consistent with the prosecution story. Secondly, not a single question was put to PW 9 Dr. Kunju Behari Sharma on this count nor any suggestion was put to any of the prosecution witnesses that the death of the deceased had occurred in the night intervening 31.8.95 & 1.9.95. Therefore, this argument is against the record and the same is hereby foiled down. 24. Lastly and in the alternative Shri Songara submitted that from the evidence on record, no motice for the crime has been established and the case does not travel beyond the offence under section 304 Part II IPC, that the appellant is continuously in custody since 1.9.95 and, as such, he be sentenced for the period already undergone, by him. It would suffice to mention that when there is reliable direct evidence about the crime, the motive pales into insignificance. In this case informant Chaturbhuj in his written report Ex.P.10 clearly mentioned that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased due to old enemity in respect of growing of vegetable corps in Bari. Admittedly appellant is also a nephew of the deceased. From the statement of PW 1 Laxmi Narayan and PW 6 Nathu Lal, it stands well proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had repeatedly inflicted axe blows to the deceased, who sustained as many as 10 incised wounds on his head, neck, chest and back. Those injuries have been well proved by PW 9 Dr. From the statement of PW 1 Laxmi Narayan and PW 6 Nathu Lal, it stands well proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had repeatedly inflicted axe blows to the deceased, who sustained as many as 10 incised wounds on his head, neck, chest and back. Those injuries have been well proved by PW 9 Dr. Kunju Behari Sharma, which were ante mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This clearly proves that the appellant had delibertely inflicted successive axe blows on the person of Shyam Lal with an intention to commit his murder. Thus, his acts clearly falls under section 300 IPC, which is punishable under section 302 IPC and the same does not fall under section 304 Part II IPC. 25. No other point was pressed before us. 26. In the premise of the above discussion, this appeal fails and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 IPC are hereby affirmed. Appellant who is at present lodged in Central Jail, Kota, be informed accordingly. *******