VISHNU SAHAI, J. This appeal has been sent from Jail by Majeed against the judgment and order dated 7-12-1993 passed by Special Sessions Judge. Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 548 of 1992 whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under: Informant Jumman P. W. 1 is the son of the appellant and the deceased Smt. Rajban. At the time of the incident, the informant, the appellant, and the deceased were living in village Kusaila within the limits of police station Maholi, District Sitapur. The relations between the appellant and his wife Smt. Rajban (deceased) were highly strained. Two years prior to the incident, the appellant had assaulted Smt. Rajban in respect of which the informant had lodged FIR. In the case arising therefrom the appellant had been convicted. Two to three days prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and Smt. Rajban. On account of it, that day no one in the family ate any food. The next day on the repeated request of the informant, the appellant and Smt. Rajban took food and the informant brought about some sort of a reconciliation between them. That day (on 5- 5-1992) at about 4 p. m. the appellant and Smt. Rajban had gone to the outskirts of the village to collect dried sugar cane leaves. The appellant had taken a sickle with him. Since for some time the appellant and Smt. Rajban did not return, informant Jumman along with his wife at about sunset went to the sugarcane field which was situated about one and a half furlongs from his house. On reaching there, the informant noticed that the appellant was assaulting Smt. Rajban with a sickle and stones in a field wherein wheat crop had been sown and cut; which was adjoining to the field where the appellant and Smt. Rajban had gone to collect dried sugarcane leaves. The informant raised cries. Thereupon the appellant ran away. Apart from the informant and his wife, this incident was seen by Mewa Lal. After the appellant had run away, the informant went to the place where his mother Smt. Rajban was lying and found that she was dead. The informant raised cries. Thereupon the appellant ran away. Apart from the informant and his wife, this incident was seen by Mewa Lal. After the appellant had run away, the informant went to the place where his mother Smt. Rajban was lying and found that she was dead. Since it had become dark and the Chaukidar could not be found, next morning he went and lodged the FIR. 3. The FIR of the incident was lodged on 6-5-1992 at 7. 30 a. m. by informant Jumman at police station Maholi, District Sitapur, the distance between the place of the incident and the police station being five kilometers. 4. The autopsy on the corpse of deceased Smt. Rajban was conducted on 6-5-1992 at 5. 15 p. m. by Dr. A. K. Pandey PW-2 who found on it the following anti-mortem injuries : (1) Lacerated wound 1. 5 c. m. x 2 c. m. x muscle deep on the left side of scalp just behind left ear. (2) Abraded contusion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the left side of neck 2 cms below lobule of the ear. (3) Two lacerated wounds 2 c. m. x 1 c. m. x muscle deep each present 1 c. m. apart on the left cheek bone. (4) Incised wound 2 c. m. x 1 c. m. x muscle deep on the right side face 1 c. m. away from right corner of mouth. (5) Incised wound 2 c. m. x 1/2 c. m. x muscle deep present on left side chin. (6) Incised wound 2 c. m. x 1 c. m. x muscle deep on the outer side of left forearm, 6 cms above left wrist joint. (7) Incised wound 8 c. m. x 3 c. m. x muscle deep on the front of right forearm, 1 c. m. above right wrist joint. Under the injury radial artery is cut. (8) Multiple lacerated wounds in an area of 9 c. m. x 3 c. m. on the front of right leg 3 c. m. above right ankle joint. Size of wound 2 c. m. x 1 c. m. x bone/muscle deep underneath both tibia and fibula fractured. (9) Multiple lacerated wounds in an area of 13 c. m. (updown) x 4 c. m. (side to side) on the front of left leg, 3 c. m. above left ankle joint. Size of wound 2 c. m. x 1 c. m. x bone/muscle deep underneath both tibia and fibula fractured. (9) Multiple lacerated wounds in an area of 13 c. m. (updown) x 4 c. m. (side to side) on the front of left leg, 3 c. m. above left ankle joint. Average size of wound 1-1/2 c. m. x 1 c. m. x muscle/bone deep, tibia and fibula fractured. In the opinion of Dr. Pandey the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by her. 5. The case was investigated in the usual manner by Shivdhar Ram, PW-5, Inspector incharge of police station Maholi, District Sitapur. After investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. During the trial, in all the prosecution examined four witnesses. One out of them i. e. Jumman, PW-1 was examined as an eye- witness. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence of Jumman and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in para 1. Hence, this appeal. 7. Since this appeal was sent from Jail, we meticulously went through the record with the help of Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Janardan Singh. After going through the entire evidence; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statement of appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. ; and the impugned judgment, we do not have any iota of doubt in our mind that the learned Sessions Judge acted correctly in finding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 8. We have seen that the conviction of the appellant is founded on the ocular account furnished by Jumman, PW-1. We have gone through it and find it to be credible. In para-2 we have set out the prosecution case on the basis of the recitals contained in his examination-in-chief and do not want to burden the judgment by graphically adverting to all the details. In short, his evidence shows: The relations between the appellant and his wife Smt. Rajban were highly strained. About two years before the incident, the appellant had assaulted her and had been convicted in the case arising therefrom. In short, his evidence shows: The relations between the appellant and his wife Smt. Rajban were highly strained. About two years before the incident, the appellant had assaulted her and had been convicted in the case arising therefrom. Two to three years before the incident, a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and Smt. Rajban. However, the next day, the informant brought reconciliation between them. That evening (evening of 5-5-1992) at about 4 p. m. the appellant and Smt. Rajban went to the sugarcane field to collect dried sugarcane leaves. The appellant had a sickle with him. When they did not return for sometime, he and his wife went to said sugarcane field and noticed that the appellant was assaulting Smt. Rajban in an adjoining field with sickle and stones. When he challenged the appellant, the later ran away. 9. We have gone through the evidence of the informant Jumman and find him to be a perfectly truthful witness. In the first place, it should be borne in mind that he is the son of the deceased and save for the most exceptional reasons no son would falsely implicate his own father. From the cross-examination of informant Jumman nothing has been extracted which could persuade us to believe that he could have falsely implicated the appellant. Apart from this, we find that Jumman has explained his presence on the place of the incident. He stated that at about 4 p. m. the appellant and Smt. Rajban had gone to the sugarcane field to gather dried sugarcane leaves and when they did not return for sometime, he went to see what had happened. This conduct of his was perfectly natural because he was aware that the relations between the appellant and Smt. Rajban were extremely bad. Further, the version of the incident as furnished by Jumman is corroborated by the medical evidence. We have seen that the same shows injuries of a dual nature, namely, blunt weapon injuries and incised wounds. It is pertinent to mention that Dr. A. K. Pandey PW-2 who performed autopsy on the corpse of the deceased categorically stated that excepting the incised wounds which were attributable to a sickle, the remaining injuries could be caused by stones. 10. It is pertinent to mention that Dr. A. K. Pandey PW-2 who performed autopsy on the corpse of the deceased categorically stated that excepting the incised wounds which were attributable to a sickle, the remaining injuries could be caused by stones. 10. It is true that the FIR in the instant case is delayed inasmuch as the incident took place on 5-5-1992 at about sunset and the FIR was lodged the next morning at 7. 30 p. m. , the police station being situated only five kilometers away from the place of the incident. But we find that the informant has given plausible explanation for the delay. In his deposition, he has stated that since he could not trace out the Chaukidar and it had become dark, he lodged the FIR the next morning. We find the said explanation to be acceptable. At any rate, in our view, the delay in lodging the FIR is inconsequential because the informant is the own son of the appellant and as mentioned earlier, he would not have falsely implicated the appellant unless he would have actually committed the murder of the deceased. 11. We feel it pertinent to mention that in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. not only has the appellant admitted that on 5-5-1992 at about 4 p. m. he and Smt. Rajban went to collect dried sugarcane leaves, but in the said statement he also admitted that he had assaulted Smt. Rajban and was not sure whether she had died or not. It is pertinent to mention that in reply to question No. 16, the appellant also stated that Jumman has correctly stated that he (appellant) murdered the deceased. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, the solitary statement of Jumman, PW-1 not only inspires confidence, but is a safe basis for sustaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. We have no doubt in our mind that the appellant was guilty of the said offence because the appellant inflicted injuries with sickle and stones on the person of the deceased, which resulted in several fractures and led to the death of the deceased. The opinion of the autopsy surgeon (Dr. A. K. Pandey) in terms that the anti- mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause her death cannot be faulted. The opinion of the autopsy surgeon (Dr. A. K. Pandey) in terms that the anti- mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause her death cannot be faulted. In our view, the act of the appellant would fall squarely within the four corners of Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. For the application of said Clause, two pre-requisites have to be satisfied : (a) There should be intention to cause injuries actually inflicted; and (b) the injuries inflicted should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the instant case, both the requirements are met. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, this appeal is devoid of substance. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and dismiss this appeal. The appellant is already in Jail and shall serve out his sentence. Appeal dismissed. .