G. P. MATHUR, J. This appeal has been preferred by Ram Sewak against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and sen tence of imprisonment for life imposed by Sessions Judge, Deoria by the judgment and order dated 6-3-1981 in S. T. No. 179 of 1980. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant Ram Sewak is son of Nakchhed, who was also an accused in the case but died during the pendency of the trial. Bundela is another brother of the appellant Ram Sewak. The first informant Rajaram and the deceased Ramsajan were real brothers. There is a small pond towards south-west of the house of the first informant and about 30-35 paces north west of the said pond there is house of accused Nakchhed. There is a passage in front of the said house which meets the canal, which is on the west side, at a dis tance of about 50 paces and there is a culvert over the same. In the evening of 13-9-1978 Shriram son of Nakchhed and Shankar son of Dukhran were catching fish in the pond. A fight took place be tween the two boys and they started giving abuses. Ramsajan (deceased), who was returning from the market at about 5. 00 p. m. asked the boys not to fight and not to give abuses and came back to his house. After sometime he went to village Churawan-chak and returned from there after sometime. He met his brother Rajaram on the culvert and both of them then proceeded towards their house. They reached in front of the house of Nakchhed at about 6. 00 p. m. Nakchhed and his son Bundela then started giving abuses to Ramsajan saying as to why he had not permitted the formers son to catch fish. Hearing the abuses Thakur, Ram Asrey and Rudal also came on the spot. Ram sajan asked them not to give him abuses on which Nakchhed instigated that he should be assaulted. The appellant Ram Sewak then brought a spear from his house and pierced the same on the chest of Ramsajan. Ramsajan fell down and died almost in stantaneously. Nakchhed, Ram Sewak and Bundela then ran away from the place of incident. The body of the deceased Ram sajan was then brought to his house. The appellant Ram Sewak then brought a spear from his house and pierced the same on the chest of Ramsajan. Ramsajan fell down and died almost in stantaneously. Nakchhed, Ram Sewak and Bundela then ran away from the place of incident. The body of the deceased Ram sajan was then brought to his house. After sometime, Rajaram scribed a report of the incident and thereafter proceeded to P. S. Kaptanganj, which is 8 miles from the place of occurrence. On account of the rainy seasons, he had to go via Hatta, which is a longer route and lodged the FIR of the occurrence at the police station at 10. 45 p. m. The FIR was lodged in the presence of P. W. 6 Ram Shankar Singh Yadav, S. O. of P. S. Kaptanganj. Jagdamba Prasad, Head Constable, then registered the case in the General Diary and prepared the chick FIR Ram Shankar Singh Yadav com menced investigation of the case and recorded statement of the first informant Rajaram. Thereafter he proceeded for the spot where he reached at about 1. 00 a. m. He held inquest on the body of the deceased next day in the morning. He prepared necessary documents like photo fash, challan lash and a letter of request to the C. M. O. for conducting post-mortem examination. The body was sealed and was sent for post-mortem examination through Mittu Prasad Yadav, Constable. He inspected the spot and found that con siderable amount of blood had fallen there. He took in his possession plain and blood stained earth, of there and prepared their recovery memo. He also prepared a site plan. After completing investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the three accused namely, Ram Sewak, Nakchhed andbundelaon 16-10-1978. 3. The C. J. M. Deoria took cog nizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sec tion 302 IPC against the appellant Ram Sewak and under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against Bundela accused. The prosecution in support of its case ex amined 6 witnesses including 3 eye-witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. denied the case of prosecution and alleged their false im plication on account of enmity. They how ever did not lead any evidence in their defence. The prosecution in support of its case ex amined 6 witnesses including 3 eye-witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. denied the case of prosecution and alleged their false im plication on account of enmity. They how ever did not lead any evidence in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge con victed the appellant Ram Sewak under Section 302 I. P. C. , but acquitted Bundela accused. 4. This appeal was listed for hearing on 29-11-2000 when on the request of Sri A. D. Giri, learned Counsel for the appel lant, the hearing of the appeal was ad journed and it was directed to be listed after two weeks. On 22-2-2001, a state ment was made on behalf of Sri A. D. Giri that he had no instructions to argue the appeal. The bail granted to the appellant was cancelled and the C. J. M. was directed to issue non-bailable warrants against the accused appellant. No report regarding the arrest of the appellant has been received so far. When the appeal was called for hearing in the revised list today Sri A. D. Giri again made a statement that he had no instructions to argue the same. As no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant we have gone through the entire record with the assistance of learned Assis tant Government Advocate in accordance with the law laid down by the apex Court in Bani Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1996 SC 2439 . We have also heard Ms. Nahid Munees, Assistant Government Advo cate, who has placed all the aspects of the case before us. 5. In order to establish case, the prosecution has examined 3 eye-witnesses namely, P. W.-1 Rajaram, P. W. 3 Ram Asrey and PW-3 Rudal. PW-1 is the real brother of deceased Ramsajan and is the first in formant of the case. He has stated that towards south west of his house there is a pond and at distance of 30-35 paces towards north-west there is house of Nakchhed accused. A passage goes in front of his house which joins a canal at a dis tance of 40 paces over which there is a culvert. On the date of the incident, he had gone for attending the call of nature in the evening. A passage goes in front of his house which joins a canal at a dis tance of 40 paces over which there is a culvert. On the date of the incident, he had gone for attending the call of nature in the evening. While returning he met his brother Ramsajan on the culvert. He was returning from village Tola Churawan. At about 6. 00 p. m. they reached in frontof the house of the accused. Nakchhed and his son Bundela started abusing Ramsajan as to why he had not allowed Shriram (son of Nakchhed) to catch fish in the pond. Ram sajan objected to the abuses being given to him. Meanwhile, PW-3 Rudal, PW-2 Ram Asrey and Thakur came there and they also objected to the hurling of abuses. Nakchhed then instigated Ram Sewak to assault Ramsajan with a spear. Ram Sewak then went inside his house, brought a spear and pierced the same in the chest of Ram sajan. Ramsajan fell down and almost died instantaneously. The accused then ran away from the spot. He further stated that after an incident they brought the body of Ramsajan to his own house. After some time he wrote the FIR of the incident and went to P. S. Kaptanganj where the same was lodged at 10. 45. In his cross-examination he stated that he had gone to the police station on a cycle. The inquest on the dead-body was conducted next day in the morning at about 8. 00 a. m. and the body was sent for post-mortem examina tion in the afternoon. He himself was a teacher in a school, which was about one furlong from his house and he had returned from there at about 4. 00 p. m. The house of PW-3 Rudal witness was 50-60 paces and PW-2 Ram Asrey witness was 100 paces from his own house. The assault was made at a distance of 10 paces from the house of the accused. In his cross-examina tion he denied the defence suggestion that the incident did not take place in front of the house of the deceased or that no wit ness was present on the spot or that the FIR was lodged the next day in consult ation with the police. 6. PW-2 Ram Asrey has stated that at about 6. In his cross-examina tion he denied the defence suggestion that the incident did not take place in front of the house of the deceased or that no wit ness was present on the spot or that the FIR was lodged the next day in consult ation with the police. 6. PW-2 Ram Asrey has stated that at about 6. 00 a. m. on the date of the incident he along with PW-3 Rudal were going towards the canal when they heard abuses being given from the side of the house of the accused and went to that place. Nakchhed was abusing Ramsajan as to why he had not allowed his son Shriram to catch fish in the pond. He exhorted Ram Sewak to assault Ramsajan with a spear. Thereafter, Ram Sewak brought the spear from inside the house and gave a blow by the same on the chest of Ramsajan who fell down and died within 2 minutes. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his house is at a distance of one furlong from the house of Nakchhed accused and the canal was also at the same distance. He and Rudal were going towards the canal for attending the call of nature. He heard the alarm when he was near the house of Rudal. He also admitted that Brij Raj Kewat had filed a criminal case against him in which Nakchhed had deposed against him prior to the present occurrence. He denied the defence suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence and was deposing falsely against the accused. 7. P. W.-3 Rudal has stated that at about 6. 00p. m. on the date of occurrence he was going towards the canal along with P W-2 Ram Asrey. On hearing alarm they went near the house of accused Nakchhed who was giving abuses to Ramsajan. When Ramsajan objected to the same, Nakchhed ex horted Ram Sewak on which he brought a spear from his house and struck the same on his chest. Ramsajan fell down and died within 2 minutes. In his cross-examination, he stated that he heard the alarm from a distance of 1-11/4 bighas. In the morning he had gone to the house of Rajararn where the Investigating officer was present. He denied the defence suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence or that he was deposing falsely against the accused. 8. PW-4 Dr. In his cross-examination, he stated that he heard the alarm from a distance of 1-11/4 bighas. In the morning he had gone to the house of Rajararn where the Investigating officer was present. He denied the defence suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence or that he was deposing falsely against the accused. 8. PW-4 Dr. J. N. L. Srivastava con ducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased at 4. 00 p. m. on 14-9-1978 and found the following ante-mortem injury on the same:- Ante-Mortem Injuries " (1) Punctured wounds :-2. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. x 15 cm. deep on the left side of chest just adjacent to left nipple at 3 oclock position. Depth of the wound directed upwards and towards left collar bone. Margins of the wound clean cut and ends tapering. Wound more gaping, the centre. " The internal examination showed that there was corresponding punctured wound in the walls, ribs, cartilages and pleura. The pericardium was cut. There was a punctured wound in the left lung and also in the heart. The doctor has proved the post-mortem report prepared by him, which is Exhibit Ka-2 on the record. He has opined that injury could have been caused at 6. 00 p. m. on 13-9-1978. 9. P. W. Mitthu Prasad Yadav, Con stable carried the dead-body of Ramsajan for the purpose of post- mortem examina tion and produced the same before the doctor. He has filed an affidavit that the body was throughout in his custody till he produced the same before the doctor. PW-6 Ramashankar Singh Yadav was S. O. of P. S. Kaptanganj on 13-9-1978. The FIR was lodged in his presence. In his state ment he has given the details of the various steps taken by him during the course of investigation of the case. He has deposed that he proceeded for the spot at 11. 30 in the night on a cycle. He had found blood on the spot. He commenced inquest at 7. 00 a. m. and finished the same at 9. 05 a. m. He denied the defence suggestion that no blood was found on the spot or that he did not collect any blood stained earth from there. 30 in the night on a cycle. He had found blood on the spot. He commenced inquest at 7. 00 a. m. and finished the same at 9. 05 a. m. He denied the defence suggestion that no blood was found on the spot or that he did not collect any blood stained earth from there. He also denied the defence sugges tion that the F. I. R. was written on the next day or that he reached the spot on the information given by the chowkidar. 10. The testimony of PW-1 Rajaram, PW-2 Ram Asray and PW-3 Rudal con clusively establishes that on the exhorta tion given by Nakchhed accused, the ap pellant Ram Sewak brought spear from inside the house and pierced the same on the chest of Ramsajan when he was stand ing in front of his house. PW- 1 Rajaram and PW-3 Rudal have no enmity with the accused. PW-2 Ram Asrey has no doubt admitted that Nakchhed accused had ap peared as a witness against him in a case instituted by Brij Prasad Kewat. He did not give any vague reply to the question that Nakchhed accused had appeared as a wit ness against him and instead fairly and frankly admitted the same. The accused led no evidence to show what was the neture of the case, whether it was a petty or a serious one. Similarly there is no material on record to show as to whether the tes timony of Nakchhed was found to be reli able or not and what was the ultimate fate of the case viz. whether Ram Asrey was convicted or acquitted. Therefore, his tes timony cannot be discarded on this ground. P. W. 1 Rajaram had met his brother Ramsajan (deceased) on the cul vert and they were both coming together. Therefore, the presence of PW-1 Rajaram on the spot cannot be doubted. So far as PW-2 Ram Asrey and PW-3 Rudal are concerned, their statement shows that they were going towards the canal for attending the call of nature. Some people do go for attending the call of nature in the evening and in the rural area the bank of a canal is considered an ideal place for the same as running water is available for the purpose of washing. Some people do go for attending the call of nature in the evening and in the rural area the bank of a canal is considered an ideal place for the same as running water is available for the purpose of washing. The testimony of these two witnesses shows that the house of Rudal is at a distance of 100 yards from the house of Ram Asrey and the canal is at a distance of one furlong. The cross-ex amination of PW-2 shows that the house of accused Nakchhed is very close from there and both the witnesses could easily hear the abuses, which were being given to the deceased Ramsajan. It is but natural that they were attracted to the spot. The testimony of the three eye-witnesses has not at all then shaken in any manner in their cross-examina tion. We have, therefore, no reason to doubt that PW-1, PW-2 and P W-3 were present on the spot and they saw the incident. We are further of the opinion that they are truth ful witnesses and implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony. 11. The post-mortem report shows that the deceased ustained punctured wound on the left side of the chest adjacent to left nipple at 3 oclock position. All the three eye-witnesses have deposed that the appellant Ram Sewak pierced the spear on the chest of Ramsajan. They have further deposed that Ramsajan immediately fell down and died within 2 minutes. P W-4 Dr. J. N. L. Srivastava has deposed that the death could have occurred at 6. 00 p. m. on 13-9-1978. He has further stated that the deceased would have died almost instan taneously. Thus, the testimony of the eye witness finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence on record. Another feature which corroborates the prosecution case is the recovery of blood stained earth from in front of the house of accused Ram Sewak. PW-6 Ramashankar Singh Yadav, S. O. P. S. Kaptanganj has stated that he had found blood on the spot and had recovered plain and blood stained earth from there The post-mortem report shows that there was blood in the chest cavity. The nature of injury shows that some blood must have come out. PW-1 Rajaram has stated in para 4 of his state ment that blood had fallen where Ram sajan had been assaulted by spear. The nature of injury shows that some blood must have come out. PW-1 Rajaram has stated in para 4 of his state ment that blood had fallen where Ram sajan had been assaulted by spear. Similar statement has been given by PW-2 Ram Asrey and P W-3 Rudal. Thus, the recovery of the blood from the spot further cor roborates the prosecution case. It may also be stated here that the defence has given no suggestion either to PW-1 Rajaram or to P W-3 Rudal as to why they would falsely depose against the accused and implicate them in a murder case. The FIR of the incident was lodged at 10. 45 p. m. at P. S. Kaptanganj, which is eight miles from the place of occurrence. PW-1 has stated that on account of rainy season he went to the police station via Hatta and had to cover a distance of 12-13 miles. His statement fur ther shows that after taking the body from the spot to his own house he took some time in order to get over the shock and thereafter he wrote the FIR. Naturally, he must have taken sometime before he com menced writing of the report. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR has been lodged very promptly. The promptness with which the FIR was lodged in which the main part of the prosecution case has been mentioned lends great assurance about the truthful ness of the prosecution version of the inci dent. Thus, from the evidence on record it is proved beyond and shadow of doubt that on the exhortation of Nakchhed accused, the appellant Ram Sewak brought out a spear from his house and pierced the same on the chest of Ramsajan and after receiv ing the injury he fell down on the spot and died almost instantaneously. 12. We would like to clarify here that even if the testimony of P. W. 2 Ram Asrey is excluded from consideration on the ground that accused Nakchhed had ap peared as a witness against him, it will make no difference as in our opinion an the testimony of the remaining two eye witnesses coupled with other features and evidence on record is enough to sustain the conviction of the appellant. 13. The next question which requires considerations what offence has been committed by the appellant. 13. The next question which requires considerations what offence has been committed by the appellant. The post mortem report shows that the injury was 15 cm. deep and that there was a cor responding punctured wound in the walls, ribs, cartilages and pleura under the injury. The periardium was cut and there was a punctured wound of 2 cm x 1 cm in the upper part of the left lung through and through and the lung and collapsed. There was also punctured would on the heart 2 cm x 1 cm over the upper part of the left ventricle through and through. Thus, the heart had also been pierced through and through. The injury appears to have been given with great force and that is why the depth of the injury was 15 cm. No doubt the doctor has not made a specific statement that the injury was sufficient in the ordi nary course of nature to cause death. But he has stated that the victim would have died immediately after receiving injuries. The witnesses have also stated that Ramsajan died within two minutes. There was ab solutely no chance of his survival as his heart had been punctured. The evidence adduced by the prosecution also shows that the appellant had intention to inflict the type of the injury which was found on the body of the deceased as he aimed the blow by a spear on the chest with great force. In view of the nature of injury here can be no doubt that the injury was suffi cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the case comes within the ambit of clause thirdly of Section 300 I. P. C. We are fortified in our view by the pronouncement of the apex Court in the oft quoted case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 . The offence committed by the appellant is, therefore, one under Section 302 IPC. There is ab solutely no scope for either altering or reducing the offence. 14. In the result, the appeal is dis missed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder are affirmed. The bail of the appellant has been cancelled on 22-2-2001. There is ab solutely no scope for either altering or reducing the offence. 14. In the result, the appeal is dis missed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder are affirmed. The bail of the appellant has been cancelled on 22-2-2001. The C. J. M. of Deoria/kushinagar are directed to take all steps available under law to take the appellant into custody. They shall send a compliance report to this Court within three months. Appeal dismissed. .