ORDER 1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant Pralhad Krishant Patil who is alleged to have taken part in an occurrence on 6-3-1987 in which one Bharat Govind died as a result of injuries suffered by him. Originally, there were as many as 11 accused persons. The trial court acquitted A-3 to A-4 but convicted the appellant (A-I) and one other accused A-2 of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, Section 341 IPC, both read with Section 34 IPC. Two appeals were preferred before the High Court, one by the State challenging the acquittal of the remaining accused persons and for enhancement of sentence and conviction of the appellant and A-2 under Section 302 IPC, while the second appeal was preferred by the appellant herein against his conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC. During the pendency of the appeal, A-2 and A-l0 died and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the State against them abated. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order affirmed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of A-3 to A-II. However, it allowed the appeal preferred by the State so far as the appellant herein is concerned and found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, instead of Section 304 Part II IPC, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 2. There are as many as six eyewitnesses in this case, namely, PWs 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on 6-3-1987 near Maruti temple in Village Mirzanpur. PW 6, who is the informant, was sitting near the Maruti temple when he heard the alarm raised by the deceased and he and others rushed to the place of occurrence. He witnessed the occurrence and thereafter the injured was a removed for treatment to Civil Dispensary, Tulzapur. The doctor there advised him to take the injured to Civil Hospital, Solapur having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased. The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (1) CLW right temporal parietal region 2" xl".(2) Abraded contusion 2" x on right forearm 2" xl". (3) Abraded contusion left lumbar region (horizontal) 6" xl".(4) Contusion right scapula medial size (horizontal) 4" xl".(5) Abrasion vertical right lumbar region 6" x 1/4". The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (1) CLW right temporal parietal region 2" xl".(2) Abraded contusion 2" x on right forearm 2" xl". (3) Abraded contusion left lumbar region (horizontal) 6" xl".(4) Contusion right scapula medial size (horizontal) 4" xl".(5) Abrasion vertical right lumbar region 6" x 1/4". (6) Abrasion right thigh anterior 1" xl".(7) Abrasion left thigh arterial middle 1/2" x 1/4". (3) It appears from the medical evidence on record that the first injury proved fatal and the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 9-3-1987. 4. On the advice of the doctor at Tulzapur, the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Solapur. They reached Civil Hospital, Solapur at about 11.30 p.m. Next morning at about 6.30 a.m. PW 6 went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police with a written report. However, they were told at the police station to go to Vairag police station which was the police station having jurisdiction over the area where the occurrence took place. They thereafter returned to Vairag and lodged the first information report at about 4.30 p.m. on 7-3-1987.S. The courts below concurrently held that the prosecution had proved its case that such an occurrence took place in which the deceased received I injuries. However, the trial court as well as the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to A-3 to A-II. A-2 died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal against him abated. We are, therefore, concerned only with the conviction of the appellant herein. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the deposition of the eyewitnesses and the judgments of the courts below. We find that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is consistent and nothing has been pointed out to persuade us to hold that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable or were not speaking the truth. Moreover, each witness has only stated what he had seen, and their evidence appears to be natural and true. So far as the role played by the appellant is concerned, that is specifically deposed to by PW 6 and PW 15. The others who had not seen him actually assaulting the deceased, did not say so. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is convincing. So far as the role played by the appellant is concerned, that is specifically deposed to by PW 6 and PW 15. The others who had not seen him actually assaulting the deceased, did not say so. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is convincing. We find no error in the reasoning of the High Court and the trial court which may justify our interference with concurrent findings of fact. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant then argued that in any event the offence made out was not one punishable under Section 302 IPC. We do not agree. The appellant had come armed with an iron rod and he gave a severe blow on the head of the deceased which ultimately resulted in his death. It cannot be said, in these circumstances, that he did not intend to cause the injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. This is not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The act complained of is not shown to be covered by any of the exceptions so as to amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant did intend to cause the injury on the head of the deceased, and the aforesaid injury intended to be inflicted has been found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The case squarely falls under Section 300 Thirdly. We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.