Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Jagsir Singh has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. Faridkot dated January 14, 1997 whereunder he was convicted under Section 302, IPC, for the murder of Bant Singh and also under Section 450, I.P.C. for entering Bant Singhs house to commit his murder. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both sentences had been directed to run concurrently. 2. On the night of October 5, 1993 at about 9 p.m. Jagsir Singh trespassed into Bants Singh house at Kotli Ablu where Bant Singh was present along with his son Boota Singh (PW-5) and Boota Singhs wife Charanjit Kaur (PW-3). Three of them were sitting in the courtyard where a light was on. They were engaged in conversation. Jagsir Singh entered the courtyard, armed with a gandhala, and told Bant Singh that he would not be allowed to escape alive since he had abused him. Thereupon Jagsir Singh gave a gandhala blow to Bant Singh on his head and Bant Singh fell down unconscious. The occurrence was witnessed by Charanjit Kaur and Boota Singh, they both raised an alarm and Jagsir Singh escaped from the spot with his weapon. Bant Singh was removed to Civil Hospital, Muktsar where he was medically examined at 5.20 a.m. on October 6 by Dr. K. S. Sandhu (PW-1) and the following injuries were found on his head:- - Lacerated wound 7 cm x 2 cm bone deep obliquely placed on the right side of the head, 9 cm above and front of right ear and 5 cm from the midline, clotted blood was present. Clotted blood was also present in nose and left ear. 3. The Medical Officer also noted that the patient was semi-conscious, pupils were equal and reacting to light. B. P. was 110/ 70 mmg and pulse was 94 per minute. The Medical Officer was contacted by ASI Amar Singh (PW-10) for recording Bant Singhs statement but the injured man was declared unfit by Dr. Sandhu at 10 a.m. on October 6. The Medical Officer also noted that the patient was semi-conscious, pupils were equal and reacting to light. B. P. was 110/ 70 mmg and pulse was 94 per minute. The Medical Officer was contacted by ASI Amar Singh (PW-10) for recording Bant Singhs statement but the injured man was declared unfit by Dr. Sandhu at 10 a.m. on October 6. Later, Bant Singh was referred to Medical College, Faridkot at 10.20 pm. but when Boota Singh (PW-6) reached the hospital at Faridkot along with the injured Bant Singh, the hospital was found closed and the injured was then taken to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where he was admitted by Dr. Deepak Gupta (PW-2). 4. When ASI Amar Singh followed Bant Singh to Faridkot he learnt that Bant Singh had not been admitted in the hospital there. He, therefore, proceeded to the spot and contacted Charanjit Kaur (PW-5) whose statement was recorded. Copy of the statement was sent to Police Station and F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Kotbhai on October 7 at 7 p.m. under Section 307/ 452, I.P.C. 5. On the following day, ASI Amar Singh received a Q.S.T. message about Bant Singhs admission at D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. So the investigator proceeded to Ludhiana on October 9 and asked the Medical Officer if Bant Singh was fit to make a statement but Bant Singh was declared unfit. The Investigating Officer then recorded the statements of Boota Singh (PW-6) and Bohar Singh, sons of Bant Singh. Bant Singh died at Ludhiana on October 9 at about 11.00 p.m. On receiving information of Bant Singhs death ASI, Amar Singh returned to the hospital and prepared the inquest report whereafter the dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. G. S. Grewal (PW-11) on October 10, at 6.00 p.m. On examination, Medical Officer found a 9 inch long wound on the head starting from the middle of the right eyebrow going upwards to the right parietal-temporal region and the middle of the right occipital region up to 3 inch of the right ear. On exploration of skull, haemotoma was present under the temporal region of the wound. The right temporal bone was missing. On exploration of skull, haemotoma was present under the temporal region of the wound. The right temporal bone was missing. On further exploration haemotoma was present on the right hemisphere of the brain extending from the frontal bone to the occipital bone and the temporal region of brain was lacerated at some places. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to the brain which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 6. Jagsir Singh was arrested on October 13 and after completion of the investigation he was sent up to face trial. Charge was framed under Sections 450 and 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Prosecution examined Dr. S. S. Sandhu (PW-1), Dr. Deepak Gupta (PW-2), Dr. Arun Nayyar (PW-3), Kaur Singh, PHG (PW-4), Charanjit Kaur (PW-5), Boota Singh. (PW-6), C. Chaman Lal (PW-7), I. C. Rachhpal Singh (PW-8), ASI Nirmal Singh (PW-9), ASI Amar Singh (PW-10), Dr. G. S. Grewal (PW-11) and Patwari Gurcharan Singh. When the accused was examined without oath under Section 313, Cr. P.C. he denied the circumstances which appeared against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to party faction in the village. According to Jagsir Singh, Charanjit Kaur and Boota Singh were made up witnesses. The prosecution had concocted a false story after 3/4 days in connivance with the complainant party. The accused was called upon to enter defence but he did not examine any witness. 8. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the defence arguments regarding two days delay in registration of the case and the false implication of the accused. The evidence of the eye-witnesses was accepted and it was found that the Medical Evidence corroborated the eye-witness account. The accused was called upon to enter defence but he did not examine any witness. 8. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the defence arguments regarding two days delay in registration of the case and the false implication of the accused. The evidence of the eye-witnesses was accepted and it was found that the Medical Evidence corroborated the eye-witness account. Learned Judge also weighed the arguments of the defence counsel that the offence was not of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC but of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 Part II, I.P.C. Court found that the case was fully covered by the Supreme Court decision in Gudar Dusadh V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 952 :(1972 Cri LJ 587) and held that where the accused gave a deliberate blow on the head of the deceased and inflicted an injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and because death resulted from the injury, case would fall under Section 302, IPC Consequently the accused were found guilty of murder and convicted. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution case was false because there was a very long delay in reporting the matter to the police. If the occurrence had taken place on October 5, at 9.00 p.m. and had been witnessed by the son and daughter-in-law of the injured person then the long delay in reporting the matter to the police on October 7 when the statement of Charanjit Kaur was recorded at Kotli Ablu and concluded at 2-05 p.m. indicated that witnesses had not seen the occurrence. Bant Singh had been injured under different circumstances and it was for this reason that no report had been lodged with the police either by Boota Singh or by Charanjit Kaur. If Boota Singh was busy in trying to arrange medical aid for his injured father, he could have certainly sent his brother Bohar Singh to the Police Station to report the matter to the police for investigation to commence. Registration of the case after two days indicated that the story was finalised after due deliberations because names of the witnesses and the accused had to be decided and the version was also required to be worked out. 10. We do not think that the matters are as simple as the defence counsel would like us to believe. Registration of the case after two days indicated that the story was finalised after due deliberations because names of the witnesses and the accused had to be decided and the version was also required to be worked out. 10. We do not think that the matters are as simple as the defence counsel would like us to believe. Bant Singh had received a grievous injury on the head with a gandhala. the injury was dangerous to life and had rendered Bant Singh nearly unconscious. The anxiety of the sons was to try to save their fathers life. This must have been upper most in their minds. It seems that Boota Singh did not realise the seriousness of the injury received by his father. Therefore, Bant Singh was kept at home for the first night and it was only in the early hours of the morning of October 6 that Bant Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Muktsar. Bant Singh remained confined at this hospital for the whole day. The police did swing into action after Bant Singh had been admitted. ASI Amar Singh of Police Post Kotli Ablu had approached the Medical Officer on October 6 itself to record Bant Singhs statement but Bant Singh was declared unfit at 10.00 a.m. on that morning. Therefore, under an ideal situation the Investigating Officer should have recorded the statement of Boota Singh who was presumably by the side of his injured father. Why this was not done is unclear but the cross-examination of ASI Amar Singh reveals that when he reached the hospital neither Charanjit Kaur nor Boota Singh nor even Bohar Singh was present. He had remained there for about an hour and during his stay in the hospital none of the three had met him. Therefore, there is a valid explanation which has been given by ASI Amar Singh but surprisingly the explanation was not unfolded in his examination-in-chief. The defence counsel before the trial Court was not content with Amar Singhs non-examination in this regard, therefore, he wanted to elicit this information in cross-examination and gave the witness a wonderful opportunity to explain why he had not recorded the statements of the witnesses after Bant Singh had been declared unfit to make a statement. There are certain questions which should never be asked in cross-examination. Some matters should be left alone. There are certain questions which should never be asked in cross-examination. Some matters should be left alone. Counsel who are well prepared and who have experience of cross-examination know this very well but inexperienced counsel, either due to overzealousness or lack of preparation asks questions which go a long way to help the prosecution case and indeed fills up many gaps in the prosecution case. In cross-examination the golden rule is that counsel should only ask such questions in cross-examination the answers of which are certain and would help in establishing the innocence of the accused or support the defence theory. Counsel had ignored this golden rule and caused immense damage to the defence case. Even after getting unfavourable replies the counsel refused to probe the witness further and let the matter rest at that. This was his second equally grave mistake. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was long delay in reporting the matter to the police but he seems to have lost sight of the fact that sons of the injured were trying to save the injured which they thought was more important than of reporting the matter to the police to apprehend the accused. The injury received by Bant Singh was such that the Medical Officer at Muktsar felt helplessness and referred to him to Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. That hospital was found closed, therefore, Bant Singh was admitted in the Ludhiana Hospital on October 7 at 3-10 a.m. Once Bant Singh had been taken from Kotli Ablu to Muktsar, Boota Singh lost contact with Charanjit Kaur. Those were not days of mobile telephones and instant communication. Things still moved at a leisurely pace. Therefore, neither the failure of Boota Singh to report the matter to the police nor the failure of the police to record his statement would be crucial in this case. The Investigating Officer did follow Bant Singh to Muktsar to record his statement but he was unfit to make a statement at 10 a.m. on October 6. Thereafter the second attempt to record the statement on October 7 at 7-20 a.m. but in the meantime Bant Singh had been referred to Faridkot Hospital. Thus the investigation took the shape of a wild goose chase. Investigating Officer acted quite sensibly to go to the village instead of following Bant Singh to Ludhiana . Thereafter the second attempt to record the statement on October 7 at 7-20 a.m. but in the meantime Bant Singh had been referred to Faridkot Hospital. Thus the investigation took the shape of a wild goose chase. Investigating Officer acted quite sensibly to go to the village instead of following Bant Singh to Ludhiana . Statement of Charanjit Kaur was therefore, recorded at Kotli Ablu at 12-15 p.m. on October 7 which formed the basis of the F.I.R. The above circumstances cover up all the aspects of delay in the registration of the case and defence cannot derive any benefit from this argument. 12. It was also argued by the learned counsel for. the appellant that when Bant Singh was admitted at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital at Ludhiana his medical history was prepared wherein Dr. Deepak Gupta (PW-2) had mentioned that the patent was under the influence of alcohol when he got involved in a fight with Jasbir Singh (sic) and he was later on hit by the same person on his head. Reference was made to this so called discrepancy to show that Bant Singh had been under the influence of drink and had a fight with the appellant. The witness was unable to explain why the name of said Jasbir Singh had been mentioned in his record. The argument is quite a weak one because what Medical Officer records as case history cannot be valuable evidence. Medical Officers prepare medical record. Their observations are based on medico-legal examinations. Sometimes Medical Officers would like to know how the injury had been inflicted since this may help them in assessing the physical damage and assist them in its treatment. It is not a part of their job to record the name of the accused or the exact manner in which the occurrence had taken place; such is the duty of the Investigating Officer. 13. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence was not one of murder. The act of the appellant was not covered by Section 300, thirdly, of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence was not one of murder. The act of the appellant was not covered by Section 300, thirdly, of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel relied upon Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 : (1958) Cri LJ 818), Jagrup Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 1981 SCC Crl 768 : (1981 Cri LJ 1136), Camilobaz V/s. State of Goa, 2000 SCC (Crl) 1128 ): (2000) Cri LJ 1816), Ganga Dass V/s. State of Haryana, 1994 (1) Chandigarh Crl Cases 14 : (1994 Cri LJ 237). 14. On the contrary recently Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Dhupa Chamar V/s. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 506 : (2002 Cri LJ 3764) has reconsidered the entire law on Section 300, thirdly, I. P. C. and has held as under (at page 3771, of Cri. L. J.) :- - "In view of the nature of injury whereby important blood vessels were ruptured inasmuch as aorta and artery were cut and when the doctor opined that death was caused as a result of severe haemorrhage and shock due to the rupture of great veins, undoubtedly, it can be reasonably inferred therefrom that such a solitary injury inflicted upon the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The above circumstance would show that the accused intentionally inflicted the injury and the same would indicate such a state of mind of the appellant that he aimed and inflicted the injury with a deadly weapon. In the absence of evidence or reasonable explanation to show that this appellant did not intend to inflict injury by bhala in the chest with that degree of force sufficient to rupture important blood vessels and cutting of aorta and other artery, it would be perverse to conclude that he did not intend to inflict the injury that he did. When once the ingredient "intention" is established then the offence would be murder as the intended injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion would be that Appellant-1 committed the offence of murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant was thus rightly convicted under Section 302." 15. When once the ingredient "intention" is established then the offence would be murder as the intended injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion would be that Appellant-1 committed the offence of murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant was thus rightly convicted under Section 302." 15. The occurrence had taken place at 9 p.m. on October 5 when Jagsir Singh entered the house of the deceased and hit him on the head with a gandhala which rendered Bant Singh unconscious. The occurrence was witnessed by Bant Singhs son Boota Singh and daughter-in-law Charanjit Kaur who were naturally present in the house. Jagsir Singh did not inflict any further injury to Bant Singh and instead opted to escape from the spot with his weapon. The witnesses attended on Bant Singh but did not evacuate him for medical treatment until early next morning when he was taken to Civil Hospital, Muktsar where he was medically examined at 5.20 a.m. Later on when the Investigating Officer reached the hospital Bant Singh was declared unfit to make statement on 10 a.m. Still later at 10.20 a.m. Medical Officer referred Bant Singh to Medical College, Faridkot but the hospital services were found closed and Bant Singh was taken to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Bant Singh reached Ludhiana Hospital at 3.10 a.m. on October 7 in an unconscious condition. His medical treatment was commenced but he survived only until October 9, when he succumbed to injuries at 11.00 p.m. 16. During the above period the Investigating Officer had made several attempts to record Bant Singhs statement but without success. Therefore, Charanjit Kaurs statement was recorded on October 7, 1993 at 12-15 p.m. at Kotli Ablu and this statement formed the basis of the F. I. R. 17. However, the main question to be considered in this case is whether the case falls within the ambit of Section 300, thirdly, I. P. C. or not? In similar circumstances where the accused had inflicted a gandhali blow from the blunt side on the head of the deceased as in Jagroop Singhs case (supra), it was held that inflicting the blow by itself could not be sufficient to raise an inference that the accused had intended to cause a bodily injury as was sufficient to cause death. In similar circumstances where the accused had inflicted a gandhali blow from the blunt side on the head of the deceased as in Jagroop Singhs case (supra), it was held that inflicting the blow by itself could not be sufficient to raise an inference that the accused had intended to cause a bodily injury as was sufficient to cause death. The accused was attributed only with the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death but not the requisite intention. Therefore, the case was taken out of Section 300, I. P. C. In Camilobazs and Ganga Dasss case a single blow on the head with a danda and iron pipe respectively was found not enough to impute intention. However, in Dhupa Chamars case the accused had inflicted a bhalla (spear) injury on the chest of the deceased with great force rupturing important blood vessels and cutting aorta and other artery resulting in instantaneous death, of the deceased. Therefore, intention was stated to have been established. 18. In the present case the injury inflicted on the deceased was a lacerated wound 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. bone deep on the right side of the head. The injury was inflicted with a gandhala. In post mortem examination it was found that there was a stitched wound 9" long starting from forehead in the middle of right eyebrow going upwards to the right parietal region and right temporal region and middle of occipital region ending 3" above the right ear. This was quite obviously a surgical wound. On exploration of skull, haemotoma was present under the temporal region of stitched wound. The right temporal bone was missing. Comparing the post mortem injury with the injury recorded by the Medical Officer who had first examined the deceased, it would be seen that the original wound was only 7 c.m. or 3" in length but the stitched wound was 9" long. The original injury was only bone deep but in the post mortem, temporal bone was found missing. Obviously this bone had been removed during the surgery. There was haemotoma of the skull which was present under the temporal region and was also present in the right hemisphere of the brain. Temporal region of the brain was lacerated at some places. The original injury was only bone deep but in the post mortem, temporal bone was found missing. Obviously this bone had been removed during the surgery. There was haemotoma of the skull which was present under the temporal region and was also present in the right hemisphere of the brain. Temporal region of the brain was lacerated at some places. It does not seem proper to consider the appellants case on the basis of the injury as recorded in the post mortem examination part of which was result of surgical intervention. The injury inflicted by the appellant was the one that was recorded by Dr. K. S. Sandhu (PW-1). Medical Officer did testify that he had declared this injury to be dangerous to life on the basis of the X-ray examination which showed fracture of skull bone (Ex. PD and Ex. PD/1). Therefore, the precise injury inflicted by the appellant was a lacerated wound 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. bone deep on the right side of the head with fracture of the underlying skull Bone. 19. The basic authority on Section 300, thirdly, is Virsa Singh V/s. State of Punjab (supra). The deceased had been inflicted a punctured wound 2" x 1/2, transverse in direction, on the left side of the abdominal wall in the lower part of the iliac region, just above the inguinal canal. Three coils of intestines came out of the wound. The incident had occurred about 8 p.m. on July 13, 1955 and the deceased died at about 5 p.m. on the following day. The Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy described the injury as "an oblique incised stitched wound 2-1/2" on the lower part of left side of belly, 1-3/4" above the left inguinal ligament. The injury was through the whole thickness of the abdominal wall. Peritonitis was present and there was digested food in that cavity. Flakes of pus were sticking round the small intestines and there were six cuts.. ....... at various places, and digested food was flowing out from three cuts." The Medical Officer also stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 20. Peritonitis was present and there was digested food in that cavity. Flakes of pus were sticking round the small intestines and there were six cuts.. ....... at various places, and digested food was flowing out from three cuts." The Medical Officer also stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 20. It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that in order to bring the case under Section 300, thirdly, it must be established that a bodily injury was present, the nature of the injury must be proved, it must also be proved that there was intention to inflict that particular bodily injury and lastly, it must be proved that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Once all these four elements are established the case would come under Section 300, thirdly, even if there was no intention to cause death because there was intention to cause bodily injury actually found present. The only question that would remain to be asked was whether the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 21. In the present case, the injury was first examined at 5-30 a.m. on October 6 and then by the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased at 6 p.m. on October 10. The occurrence had taken place on October 5 at 9.00 p.m. Death had occurred at 11 p.m. on October 9, exactly 4 days after the injury had been inflicted. During this period the injured had been taken from his village to Civil Hospital, Muktsar and from there to Medical College Faridkot and lastly to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana where he was admitted on October 7. During this period the injury to the brain had remained unattended. The deceased underwent surgical intervention at the Dayanand Hospital. The scalp bone was removed and the wound was stitched. In spite of best efforts of the Doctor he did not survive. It seems the connection between the injury and death was somewhat remote and it is difficult to say that only the injury inflicted had been sufficient to cause death and was the only cause of death. Was there no other contributory factor ? In spite of best efforts of the Doctor he did not survive. It seems the connection between the injury and death was somewhat remote and it is difficult to say that only the injury inflicted had been sufficient to cause death and was the only cause of death. Was there no other contributory factor ? For instance, the patient being unattended for 36 hours, patient travelling a long distance from his village to Ludhiana and patients condition having already become quite precarious before the surgeons intervention. For this reason it is difficult to say that the cause of death was the injury per se and not the other attending circumstances. The intention was only to cause the injury; the intervening factors were not something that the appellant could have controlled or foreseen or even intended. 22. Appellant can be attributed to have the knowledge that a gandhala blow which he inflicted on Bant Singh would cause fracture to the skull bone but he may not have intention to cause haemorrhage and laceration of the brain. Therefore, case of the appellant would not fall within the rule laid down in Dhupa Chamars case and would be covered by the opinion given in Jagrup Singhs case whose facts are fully applicable to the present case. Therefore, the case of the appellant is not covered by Section 300, thirdly, I. P. C. and he was wrongly convicted for murder. The present case would fall under Section 304, Part II, C. P.C. 23. Conviction of the appellant is hereby converted from Section 302, I. P. C. to Section 304, Part II, C. P. C. and sentence is reduced from life to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The appellant shall also pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. However, conviction of the appellant under Section 450, I. P. C. is upheld. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal is disposed of with the above modification in conviction and sentence.