(1) THIS appeal, as of right, has been preferred by the appellant from jail on a charge that he murdered his wife. He was tried by a Sessions Court. After trial he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge. But on appeal preferred by the State a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. (2) THE lady who died in the episode was Kempawwa. Appellant and Kempawwa became husband and wife almost 15 years prior to the date of occurrence. They were issueless. The incident happened in the early hours of 28-5-1990, inside the house of the appellant. The prosecution case is that appellant had beaten the deceased with a hammer on the head and thereafter kerosene was doused on her and she was set ablaze. Appellant also attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on himself and catching the fire. When the commotion was overheard by the neighbouring residents they all rushed to the scene and banged on the door of the room where the couple lived. When those persons compelled the insider to open the door it was the appellant who opened the door, he by them was in a semi-burnt condition. The neighbours noted that deceased had already died. (3) PUBLIC Witness-4 Dr. Prema Vijai who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased noted the following injuries on her: "1. Lacerated wound over the tempora region of scalp on left side. 2" x «" bone deep. Haematoma (swelling) extending a round left ear. Left side of forehead and also behind left ear. 2. Lacerated wound over left side of occipital bone deep 2" x «". 3. Small lacerations over left ear lobule. «" x 1/4". 4. Small lacerated wound 2" behind injury No. 1 skin deep. 5. Small laceration wound over left cheak over left lower jaw. 6. Small punctured wound over the lateral aspect of right eyebrow. 7. Over the dorsum of right forearm superficial skin bums are present. Skin peeled off in some places. Small area of superficial burns over right side of waist 4" x 3" skin peeled off. 8. Small lacerated wound over the dorsum of left middle finger on proximal phaly n x «" x 1/4" fracture of proximal phalynx present. 9. 7. Over the dorsum of right forearm superficial skin bums are present. Skin peeled off in some places. Small area of superficial burns over right side of waist 4" x 3" skin peeled off. 8. Small lacerated wound over the dorsum of left middle finger on proximal phaly n x «" x 1/4" fracture of proximal phalynx present. 9. Abrasion over left fore-arm about 2." On dissection, she noticed sub-dural haematoma over the left hemisphere of the brain with lacerations of the brain on the left side. She also noticed bums on the dead body. However,Public Witness-4 doctor opined that death was caused by injury No. 1 associated with the Sub-dural haematoma. (4) THE charge was sought to be established on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance was that deceased died of homicidal death. Learned counsel for the appellant endeavoured to show that the injuries could have been sustained by the deceased in a fall. We bestowed our consideration on that contention, but we are unable to concede to it. Even if there is a possibility of injury No. 1 or injury No. 2 to be result of independent contact in separate falls, it is almost impossible that in a single fall those two injuries could be sustained. We, therefore, rule out the possibility of those injuries having been sustained in a fall. (5) THE next circumstance is that when all the neighbours rushed to the scene they found the room wherein the couple was staying was bolted from inside. When they banged on the door it was opened by the appellant. The only two human beings who stayed in that room during the occurrence night were the appellant and his wife. Hence, there is no possibility of an outsider inflicting injuries on the deceased. The said circumstance is therefore almost conclusive in establishing that the assailant of the deceased would have been the appellant himself. (6) THE third circumstance is the extra- judicial confession spoken to by public Witnesss.-2, 6 and 8. We do not find any reason to reject the testimony of those witnesses when all of them said in one accord that the appellant blurted out to them that he had killed his wife on getting angry at her. (7) THE above circumstance would therefore cumulatively establish that it was the appellant who caused the death of the deceased. We do not find any reason to reject the testimony of those witnesses when all of them said in one accord that the appellant blurted out to them that he had killed his wife on getting angry at her. (7) THE above circumstance would therefore cumulatively establish that it was the appellant who caused the death of the deceased. We have now to consider whether appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. (8) FROM the injuries extracted above it is not possible to say that any one of them or all of them cumulatively would be sufficient to 2392 cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 1 associated with the sub-dural haematoma is, of course, likely to cause death. But that injury cannot be brought within the purview of the "thirdly" clause of Section 300 of the I.P.C. It is difficult for us to say that the appellant intended to inflict an injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (9) MR. Sanjay Hegde, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka contended that considering the weapon used by the appellant, being a hammer, and all the situs on which the blows were inflicted, this Court can reasonably deduce that the appellant would have intended to murder his wife. The description about the weapon is that it was a hammer. What is the size of the hammer is not described at all. Nonetheless, we can discern that it could not have been a hammer of a big size. We make the said observation from the dimensions of the injuries Nos. 1 and 2 extracted above. The hammer would have been a small one. That apart,Public Witness-2 said that the accused had told the neighbour that he inflicted blows on his wife on his becoming angry at her. Either it should have been an act done on the spur of the moment because of some provocation or it would have been done in a hubbub between the couple. At any rate it is not reasonably correct to say that accused inflicted those injuries with the intention that she should be murdered. Death became an unfortunate consequence. Either it should have been an act done on the spur of the moment because of some provocation or it would have been done in a hubbub between the couple. At any rate it is not reasonably correct to say that accused inflicted those injuries with the intention that she should be murdered. Death became an unfortunate consequence. (10) FOR the aforesaid reasons we bring down the offence from Sec. 302 to Sec. 304, Part II of the I.P.C. In the circumstances of this case we feel that a sentence of rigourous imprisonment for a period of 7 years will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, impose the said sentence on him. (11) IT is for the jail authorities to work out the period he had already undergone including the remissions to which he is entitled. It is for the jail authorities to set him free on completion of the sentence imposed by us. (12) THIS appeal is disposed of accordingly.