JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J:---Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 19th June, 1996 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 20/96, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo 2 months R.I., for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under : The deceased Lotya Parshi Padvi was the real elder brother of Khatraya Parshi Padvi P.W. 2. Lotya and Khatraya were residing in contiguous houses in village Dhavalivihir, Taluka Taloda, District Dhule. Khatraya's house was visible from Lotya's house. Lotya was deaf and abnormal. He used to talk at random. On 2-3-1995 at about 5.30 a.m. Lotya was sleeping on the ota of his house. At that time, Khatraya and his wife who were sleeping outside their house heard his cries "Ba Melo" (I am dying). Consequently, on hearing them, Khatraya alongwith his wife rushed to the ota where Lotya was sleeping. He saw that the appellant who was also a resident of village Dhavalivihir, was standing near the ota with a pestle (musal) in his hand. Seeing Khatraya and his wife, the appellant started running towards his hut. Khatraya shouted that the appellant had assaulted Lotya with a pestle (musal) and chased him. On the way he met Bhimsing P.W. 4 and Jangya Manga Padvi and told them that the appellant assaulted Lotya with a pestle. The appellant however, ran away leaving the musal at his hut. Thereafter, Khatraya, Bhimsing and Jangya went to the house of the Police Patil but since he was not there, they went to the house of the Sarpanch Babulal Vaharaya Pawara P.W. 5 and Khatraya told Babulal that the appellant had killed Lotya. Thereafter, Khatraya alongwith some others again went to trace out the appellant and caught him near the house of Bhimsing. Thereafter, Khatraya alongwith Bhimsing P.W. 4 and Babulal Pawara P.W. 5 went to the Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. 3. The evidence of A.P.I. Ramnath Bajirao Lande P.W. 7 shows that on 2-3-95 at about 9 a.m. Khatraya P.W. 2 alongwith Babulal Pawara P.W. 5 and some others came to Police Station Taloda were Khatraya gave an oral complaint which he reduced in writing. The evidence of A.P.I. Ramnath Bajirao Lande P.W. 7 shows that on 2-3-95 at about 9 a.m. Khatraya P.W. 2 alongwith Babulal Pawara P.W. 5 and some others came to Police Station Taloda were Khatraya gave an oral complaint which he reduced in writing. On the basis of the said complaint (Exhibit 24) he registered Crime No. 26/95 at about 9.45 a.m. 4. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by A.P.I. Ramanath Lande P.W. 7. On the date of the incident itself he went to the house of the appellant where in the presence of public panch Ranchod Tamboli P.W. 6 appellant's wife handed over a wooden pestle, which she informed, was used by the appellant in the commission of offence. The said pestle was seized under a panchnama. Some other investigation was conducted by A.P.I. Lande but since a reference to it, is not necessary for the decision of this appeal, we are not adverting to it. 5. The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Lotya was conducted by Dr. Ujawala Narde P.W. 3, on 2-3-95, between 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Dr. Narde found on it the following ante mortem injuries :--- (1) Contused lacerated wound over right parietal region vertical in direction 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. (2) Contused lacerated wound over Rt. temporal region vertical in 9 direction 4 c.m. x 1 and half c.m. (3) Contusion over left eye swelling present. Age of injuries within 8 hours, caused by hard and blunt object. On internal examination, Dr. Narde found crack fracture over right parietal and right temporal bone which in her opinion was possible by Article No. 3 (pestle). In her statement, in the trial Court, Dr. Narde stated that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to fracture of skull and laceration of brain and the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the applicant was charged for an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. to which charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, in all the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the applicant was charged for an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. to which charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, in all the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. We straightway mention that there is no eye witness of the incident and the case hinges on circumstantical evidence, the circumstances being :--- (a) On 2-3-95, at about 5.30 a.m. Khatraya P.W. 2 who was sleeping in the immediate proximity of the deceased Lotya, who was sleeping on the ota of his house, heard the cries of Lotya "Ba Melo" (I am dying) and when he went to the ota alongwith his wife, he saw the appellant standing there with a pestle (musal) in his hand; (b) On seeing Khatraya, the appellant started running. Khatraya chased him and while he was chasing, he was shouting that the appellant had killed Lotya and Bhimsing P.W. 4 also heard his shouts; and (c) Presence of pestle (musal) injuries on the corpse of the deceased. The learned trial Judge found that the evidence in respect of the said circumstances was trustworthy. He consequently convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in paragraph 1, above. Hence this appeal. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. We are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in this appeal. In our judgment, the aforesaid 3 circumstances are squarely established. 8. We now propose considering each of the said circumstances. 9. We begin with circumstance (a) namely that on 2-3-95, about 5.30 a.m. Khatraya P.W. 2 who was sleeping in the immediate proximity of the deceased Lotya, who was sleeping on the ota of his house, heard the cries of Lotya "Ba Melo" (I am dying) and when he went to the ota alongwith his wife, he saw the appellant standing there with a pestle (musal) in his hand; In our view since Khatraya was sleeping in the immediate proximity of the deceased Lotya, it was natural for him to hear his cries "Ba Melo" (I am dying) and it was also natural for him to go to the ota where his brother Lotya was sleeping. Khatraya's evidence show that when he reached the ota, he saw the appellant standing there with a pestle. Khatraya's evidence show that when he reached the ota, he saw the appellant standing there with a pestle. We have gone through the statement of Khatraya and we find no infirmity in the same. It is pertinent to mention that although he was cross examined but nothing could be extracted therefrom which renders his evidence doubtful in respect of this circumstance. In our view, this circumstance is established. 10. We now come to circumstance (b) namely that on seeing Khatraya, the appellant started running, Khatraya chased him and while he was chasing, he was shouting that the appellant had killed Lotya and Bhimsing P.W. 4 also heard his shouts. In respect of this circumstance, we have the evidence of Khatraya P.W. 1 and Bhimsing P.W. 4. The evidence of Khatraya shows that on seeing him, the appellant started running and he chased him shouting that the appellant had killed Lotya with a musal. His evidence and that of Bhimsing P.W. 4 shows that the latter heard his cries. We have gone through the evidence of Khatraya and Bhimsing and find it to be credible. We make no bones in observing that although they were cross examined but nothing could be scored therefrom which can discredit their testimony. In our view, this circumstance is also established. 11. We now come to circumstance (c) namely that presence of pestle (musal) injuries on the corpse of the deceased. In respect of this circumstance, we have the evidence of Dr. Ujwala Narde P.W. 3 who performed autopsy on the corpse of the deceased. We have earlier seen that Dr. Narde found 2 contused lacerated wounds on the head of the deceased and 1 contusion on left eye of the deceased. We have also seen that beneath the 2 contused lacerated wounds, Dr. Narde found crack fractures of right parietal and right temporal bones. We have earlier seen, that in the opinion of Dr. Narde, the injuries of the deceased could be caused by the pestle (Article No. 3) shown to her and that the said injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Since we see no reason to disagree with the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Narde because it is common knowledge that pestle would cause contused lacerated wounds, this circumstance is also established. 12. Since we see no reason to disagree with the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Narde because it is common knowledge that pestle would cause contused lacerated wounds, this circumstance is also established. 12. In our judgment, circumstance (a) to (c) are not only firmly established but they unerringly lead to the inference that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. 13. Mrs. Ansari, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that only an offence under section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. would be made out against the appellant because no motive has been suggested by the prosecution which would have prompted the appellant to murder the deceased. We have reflected over Mrs. Ansari's submission and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it because the circumstantial evidence which we have believed irresistably leads to the inference that the appellant intentionally inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased. The medical evidence which we have referred to earlier, shows that the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. For the said reasons in our view, the act of the appellant would fall within the four corners of Clause Thirdly of section 300 I.P.C., the breach of which is punishable under section 302 I.P.C. In our view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. Before proceeding to the operative part of the judgment, we would like to point out that absence of motive would not ipso facto take out an act from the four corners of the four clauses of section 300 I.P.C. It is often seen that murders are committed without motive. If Mrs. Ansari's submission is to be accepted then, whenever there is no motive, an offence under section 302 I.P.C. would not be made out. We are afraid that such a submission is incompatible with the provisions contained in section 300 I.P.C., especially with those contained in Clauses Thirdly and Fourthly of section 300 I.P.C. Clause Thirdly of section 300 I.P.C. would be invoked if an act is committed with the intention of inflicting such bodily injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Clause Fourthly wound be invoked if an act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury is likely to cause death. In our view motive may only be relevant so far as the application of Clauses Firstly and Secondly of section 300 I.P.C. is concerned. Clause Firstly provides that culpable homicide is murder if an act by which death is caused is committed with the intention of causing death. Clause Secondly provides that culpable homicide is murder if it is committed with the intention of causing such bodily injuries which are likely to cause death of the person who dies as a result thereof. In deciding the question of intention, motive may some times be relevant but there is no rule of thumb that it would always be relevant. 14. For the said reasons, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and dismiss this appeal. The appellant is in jail and shall serve out his sentence. Appeal dismissed. -----