D. K. TRIVEDI, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-12-95 passed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri convicting appellant Ram Naresh under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him for imprisonment for life. 2. It is an admitted fact that deceased Anup Ram was the real brother of appel lant Ram Naresh. A report was lodged by Smt, Ram Beti wife of Anup Ram (deceased ). The appellant as well as PW-1 Ved Prakash, and PW-2 Har Dayal are real brothers of deceased Anup Ram. It is said that all the brothers of deceased Anup Ram used to live in viilage-Kashipur, PS. Pasgawan, District Lakhimpur Kheri. Ac cording to the prosecution case on 28-6-93 at about 6 a. m. Anup Ram was cutting patawar and his wife was collecting the said patawar. Appellant Ram Naresh came out behind the patawar1 armed with spade and caused spade blow on the head of Anup Ram (deceased ). Anup Ram (deceased) then fell down receiving the injuries and became unconscious. Smt. Ram Beti then raised an alarm and on hearing the alarm, several persons includ ing the brothers of the deceased who were working in nearby field, reached there and caught hold of accused Ram Naresh with the help of the two constables. It is said that the two constables also reached there and they also caught hold of accused Ram Nareshjust after the incident alongwith spade. Thereafter, Smt. Ram Beti went to the police station Pasgawan and lodged a report (Ext. Ka-5) on the same day i. e. , 28-6-93 at about 9. 15 p. m. The distance of the police station from the place of the incident is about 4-1/2 Kms. Accused Ram Naresh was also handed over alongwith the said spade to the police at the time of lodging of the FIR Pw-4 Amrit Lal, con stable registered the case at the police-sta tion. A memo Ext. Ka-4 was also prepared in respect of the blood stained spade. Thereafter, the case was investigated and finally a charge-sheet was submitted by the police against accused Ram Naresh. 3. As deceased Anup Ram was in an injured condition therefore, he was sent to P. H. C. Pasgawan immediately by PW-4 constable Amrit Lal. He was medically examined by PW-6 Dr. Shiv Prakash Gautam on 28-6-93 at about 9. Thereafter, the case was investigated and finally a charge-sheet was submitted by the police against accused Ram Naresh. 3. As deceased Anup Ram was in an injured condition therefore, he was sent to P. H. C. Pasgawan immediately by PW-4 constable Amrit Lal. He was medically examined by PW-6 Dr. Shiv Prakash Gautam on 28-6-93 at about 9. 50 p. m. It is said by PW-6 Dr. Shiv Praksh Gautam that Anup Ram was dead when he reached P. H. C. but in spite of this the doctor ex amined the injuries of Anup Ram. There after, PW-7 Dr. S. Prakash conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Anup Ram on 29-6-93 at 4. 00 p. m. and the doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased Anup Ram: 1. Incised wound 16 cm x 2 cm x at the top of the Head. It is bone deep 3 cm above left ear pinna and 8. 5 cm above right ear pinna. Margin sharp, spindle shape tapening at both the ends. Scalp bone cut through and through and part of brain coming out. On internal examination, the doctor found that the stomach of the deceased contained 100 gms. of food material and small and large intestines were full of Gas and Faecal matters. According to the doc tor, the death of the deceased was caused due to coma on account of injury No. 1. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka-7. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as seven witnesses, out of them P W-1 Ved Prakash, PW-2 Har Dayal, PW-3 Roshan Lal and PW-5 Smt. Ram Beti are the witnesses of fact. PW-1 Ved Prakash and PW-2 Har Dayal are real brothers of accused Ram Naresh and they did not support the prosecution case, and therefore, they were declared hostile. PW-3 Roshan Lal is also resident of the same village Kashipur but he also did not sup port the prosecution case and, therefore, he was also declared hostile. However, all the three eye-witnesses stated that Anup Ram was killed at about 6 p. m. PW-4 Amrit Lal, Constable proved the registra tion of the case as well as other entries made in the G. D. PW-6 Dr. Shiv Prakash Gautam examined injured Anup Ram at the P. H. C. Pasgawan. PW-7 Dr. However, all the three eye-witnesses stated that Anup Ram was killed at about 6 p. m. PW-4 Amrit Lal, Constable proved the registra tion of the case as well as other entries made in the G. D. PW-6 Dr. Shiv Prakash Gautam examined injured Anup Ram at the P. H. C. Pasgawan. PW-7 Dr. S. Prakash conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased on 29-6-93 at about 4 p. m. 5. On the other hand the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been implicated in this case due to enmity. The learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri after scrutinizing the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has suc cessfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants mentioned above. 6. The accused-appellant aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed an appeal from Jail. As the appellant is not represented by any counsel, therefore, we appointed Sri Vivek Kshottri, Advocate of this Court as amicus curiae to argue the case. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. As pointed out above, three of the eye-witnesses namely, PW-1 Ved Prakash, PW-2 Har Dayal and PW-3 Roshan Lal did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile, However, all the three eye-witnesses aforesaid clearly stated that Anup Ram was killed in the evening. In these circumstances, there remains the testimony of PW-5 Smt. Ram Bati who lodged the FIR immediately, just after the incident and also supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Smt. Ram Beti is the widow of deceased Anup Ram. She clearly stated that Anup Ram (deceased) was cutting patawar and she was collect ing the same at the time of the incident. She further stated that Ram Naresh came out behind the patawar with a spade and gave a spade blow on the head of the deceased (Anup Ram ). The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased also found incised wound on the head of the deceased. This fact subparts the testimony of PW-5 Smt. Ram eti that accused Ram Naresh gave a spade blow on the head of the deceased. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased also found incised wound on the head of the deceased. This fact subparts the testimony of PW-5 Smt. Ram eti that accused Ram Naresh gave a spade blow on the head of the deceased. She further stated that she raised an alarm and on hearing the alarm, several persons in cluding brothers of the deceased reached there and chased the accused and caught hold of the accused alongwith spade with the help of the two constables. Thereafter, she lodged a report at P. S. Pasgawan at 9. 15 p. m. and handed over accused Ram Naresh to the police at the time of lodging of the FIR. She also handed over the blood stained spade to the police. The police prepared a memo Ext. Ka-4 in respect of the said spade at the police station itself and this fact also corroborates the testimony of PW-5 Smt. Ram Beti immedi ately after the incident, lodged the report at the police station Pasgawan giving details of the incident and she mentioned the facts in great detail which also further find support from her testimony as well as medical evidence. Just after lodging of the FIR. , deceased Anup Ram was sent to P. H. C. Pasgawan, where he was attended by PW-6 Dr. Shiv Prakash Gautam who stated that Anup Ram was brought at P. H. C. Pasgawan at about 9. 30 p. m. but Anup Ram was found dead. The fact that Anup Ram was brought to P. H. C. at about 9. 15 p. m. also shows that the FIR was lodged as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the statement of PW-5 Smt. Ram Beti is consistent and nothing from her cross-examination came out on which basis it can be said that she is not telling the correct facts. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that about 3 years before the incident, the accused (Ram Naresh) had teased her and therefore, she as well as deceased Anup Ram had lodged a report of that incident and also scolded the appel lant. She was cross-examined in great detail but there is nothing in her cross-ex amination on which basis, it can be said that there was any reason to falsely impli cate the accused. She was cross-examined in great detail but there is nothing in her cross-ex amination on which basis, it can be said that there was any reason to falsely impli cate the accused. PW-1 Ved Prakash ad mits that in the evening he was in his field and the cattle were grazing and further his brother Har Dayal was scraping the grass. He further stated That Ram Naresh did not assault him (Anup Ram) with spade but he has not given any explanation as to who killed the deceased specially when he ad mits his presence on the spot. All the above-named three eye- witnesses were declared hostile but at least they supported the prosecution case to the extent that Anup Ram was killed in the evening. In view of the facts stated above, the tes timony of PW-5 Ram Beti is above-board and is reliable testimony. It is settled law that the sole testimony of a witness is suffi cient to convict a person and in these cir cumstances, we find no illegality in the conviction of the appellant. The presence of PW-5 Smt. Ram Beti is not disputed and she is a natural witness. There is no reason to show as to why she will implicate the accused who is her real dewar excluding the real culprit. The testimony of PW-5 Smt. Ram Beti is supported by other cir cumstances of the case including the fact that just after the incident the accused-ap pellant was handed over to the police alongwith the blood stained spade. The testimony of PW-5 Smt. Ram Beti further finds full support from the medical evidence and in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the sole testimony of Smt. Ram Beti is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in any case, the present case does not fall within the category of murder and the case falls under Section 304 (1), IPC. In support of his contention, he pointed out that the appel lant is admittedadmittedly the real brother of the deceased (Anup Ram ). He had no inten tion to kill the deceased because he was not armed with any deadly weapon. In support of his contention, he pointed out that the appel lant is admittedadmittedly the real brother of the deceased (Anup Ram ). He had no inten tion to kill the deceased because he was not armed with any deadly weapon. According to him, the spade is an agricultural imple ment and it appears that in the field some thing might have happened at the time of the incident and then, the appellant gave one spade blow on the head of the deceased. He further contended that the fact that the appellant did not repeat the blow also supports the fact that the appel lant had no intention to kill the deceased. 10. We are unable to accept this con tention of the learned counsel for the ap pellant. 11. According to the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR as well as PW-5 Smt. Ram Beti, the deceased (Anup Ram) was cutting palawar at the time of the incident. According to the prosecution case, the appellant armed with spade came out from the patawar and immediately gave one spade blow on the head of the deceased. There is nothing on the record to show that any altercation or any other thing happened at the time of the incident. The fact that the appellant came out sud denly with a spade and gave one spade blow on the head of the deceased, itself shows that he came with an intention to give a spade blow to the deceased. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has clearly mentioned that the scalp bone was cut through and through and part of brain was coming out, while describing the internal examination of the dead body, the doctor further mentioned that both of the parie tal and temporal bones were cut through and through. The nature of injury itself shows that the spade blow was so forceful that the whole of the skull was fractured. The injury itself shows that the same was sufficient to cause death of the deceased. In the cross-examination nothing has been suggested to the witnesses including PW-5 Smt. Ram Bali as to whether any alterca tion or anything took place between the deceased and appellant (Ram Naresh) or not ? Even the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. The injury itself shows that the same was sufficient to cause death of the deceased. In the cross-examination nothing has been suggested to the witnesses including PW-5 Smt. Ram Bali as to whether any alterca tion or anything took place between the deceased and appellant (Ram Naresh) or not ? Even the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , has not given any reason for giving such blow to the deceased. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it is not possible to believe that something might nave happened on the spot and then accused picked up a spade and gave one spade blow to the deceased. 12. On the other hand, as pointed out above, the accused came on the spot with a spade with an intention to assault the deceased. The nature of the injury itself shows that the force of the spade blow was so strong that the whole skull of the deceased was fractured. 13. In the case of Virsa Singh v. Stale of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 , the Honble Supreme Court clearly propounded a law that even in a case of single blow the case will fall Under Section 302, IPC observing as follows: "the prosecution must prove the follow ing facts before it can bring a case under Section 300 "thirdly"; First, it must establish, quite ob jectively, that a bodily injury is present; Second ly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unin tentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type, just described, made up of the three ele ments set out above, is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the of fender. " 14. In the instant case as pointed out above, the accused came on the spot with a spade and inflicted injury on the head of the deceased. The said injury cannot be said to be accidental. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the of fender. " 14. In the instant case as pointed out above, the accused came on the spot with a spade and inflicted injury on the head of the deceased. The said injury cannot be said to be accidental. On the other hand, it is proved that the accused came on the spot with an intention to inflict particular bodi ly injury. In our opinion, the accused in tended to inflict the said injury which is on the head of the deceased causing fracture of skull and therefore, it is proved that the accused-appellant intended to cause severe injury and therefore, this case falls under Section 302, IPC. The Honble Supreme Court further reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Vtrsa Singh (supra), in the case of Jai Praksh v. Delhi Administration, 1993 (30) ACC 755. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant relying upon a case decided by this Court in Ram Nain v. State of UP 1995 L. C. R. , 48 in which this Court acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 302, IPC. and con victed him under Section 304 (i), IPC. sub mitted that even accepting the prosecu tion case, the present case may be a case for conviction under Section 304 (i), IPC and not under Section 302, IPC. but we find that the facts of the aforesaid case are quite different than the facts of the present case. In the case of Ram Nain (supra), the ac cused met the deceased accidentally and there was no prior intimation that the deceased would be met accidentally. The weapon used was lathi but looking into the facts and circumstances that the accused had no prior information that the deceased would pass by this way and would meet accidentally, this Court took a view that as the accused had no prior informa tion, therefore, the case will fall under Section 304 (I), IPC. 16. The learned counsel for the ap pellant further placed before us the case of Gulzar Hussain v. State of U. P. , 1993 SCC (Crl) 384 in which the Honble Supreme Court altered the conviction of the ac cused from under Section 302, IPC to under Section 304 (i), IPC. 16. The learned counsel for the ap pellant further placed before us the case of Gulzar Hussain v. State of U. P. , 1993 SCC (Crl) 384 in which the Honble Supreme Court altered the conviction of the ac cused from under Section 302, IPC to under Section 304 (i), IPC. No doubt, in the case of Gulzar Hussain (supra) the accused gave a single knife blow but the facts are quite different that the facts of the present case. In the case of Gulzar Hussain (supra) it is clearly pointed out by the Apex Court that the doctor who examined the deceased could not be able to say about the dimension of the injuries at the time of the trial and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination was not produced. In the absence of these facts, the Apex Court took a view that it is not pos sible to ascertain whether the accused in tended to cause death by giving knife blow or not. In the instant case, as pointed out above, the accused came on the spot with a spade and gave a spade blow on the head of the deceased. The force of the blow was so strong that the whole skull was fractured and the injury itself shows that the same was sufficient to cause death in the ordi nary course of nature. 17. Therefore, the learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri has committed no illegality in passing the order of conviction under Section 302, IPC against the accused-appellant. 18. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal has no force and is hereby, dis missed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri against the accused-ap pellant are hereby, confirmed. Appellant Ram Naresh is in Jail. He is directed to serve cut the sentence awarded by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed. .