JUDGMENT 1. - Chandraveer Singh the sole-appellant herein through present appeal filed by him calls in question the order of conviction and sentence that came to be recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi, dated 4.9.2002 vide which he has been held guilty for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. 2. The only point that has been urged in support of this appeal is that the offence committed by the appellant would be covered either under section 304 Part II or at the most under section 304 Part I of the IPC and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is not sustainable and is unjustified. 3. The facts that need to be noticed in the context of the only contention that has been raised by the learned counsel reveal that Ramesh died in an occurrence that took place on 5.12.1999 at 5.30 PM. An FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged within half an hour on the same day. It was lodged by Ramkaran PW1 and was presented before Hardeo Singh PW7. Special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate on 6.12.1999 at 10.45 AM. 4. While unfolding the prosecution version Ramkaran stated that his son Ramesh aged about 35 years had gone to cultivate the land of Govind Jat which was on rent with him. He started ploughing the land of Govind Jat. He alongwith Govind and his neighbour Babu and Gopi were sitting on the common boundary wall. After some time when Ramesh after stopping the tractor was urinating, Chandraveer Arora came there and took out an iron rod from front and inside his pant. He gave an iron rod blow on the head of Ramesh, where-upon Ramesh fell down on the ground. While he was falling down Chandraveer gave 3-4 blows with the same rod to Ramesh. They all, namely himself, Govind, Gopi and Babu ran so as to catch Chandraveer but he was able to escape alongwith an iron rod. They had then put Ramesh in a Jeep of Jugan Kalya and took him into hospital where the doctor declared him dead. 5. They all, namely himself, Govind, Gopi and Babu ran so as to catch Chandraveer but he was able to escape alongwith an iron rod. They had then put Ramesh in a Jeep of Jugan Kalya and took him into hospital where the doctor declared him dead. 5. The prosecution proved death of Ramesh having been caused due to injuries sustained by him. Dr. Karan Lal PW13 stated that on 6.12.1999 at 10.30 AM he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Ramesh. He proved post mortem report Ex.P14 which shows following injuries having been sustained by Ramesh: "1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep behind right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep 3/4" away from injury No. 1 on occipital area 3. Lacerated wound 2" x 1" x bone deep 1" away from injury No. 2 on occipital area. 4. Swelling 2" x 1/2" on the parotid region right side. 6. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries sustained by Ramesh were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the cross-examination Dr. Karan Lal admitted that he had not mentioned in the post mortem report that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He denied the suggestion that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He could not tell as to whether the death was because of injury No. 1 or injury No. 2 or injury No. 3. Ramkaran examined as PW1 deposed in tune that the FIR lodged by him. Govind PW2, Babulal PW3 fully supported the prosecution version. Ramdeo Soyal PW14 deposed with regard to the steps he had taken while investigating the case. 7. When examined under section 313 Cr.RC. the appellant denied incriminating Material put to him and further stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He did not lead any evidence in defence. 8. Mr. A.K. Gupta, appearing for the appellant, as mentioned above, contends that from the nature of weapon and the injuries sustained by Ramesh the case would not be covered under section 302 IPC. He endeavour to strengthen his contention on the basis of statement made by Dr. He did not lead any evidence in defence. 8. Mr. A.K. Gupta, appearing for the appellant, as mentioned above, contends that from the nature of weapon and the injuries sustained by Ramesh the case would not be covered under section 302 IPC. He endeavour to strengthen his contention on the basis of statement made by Dr. Karan Lal PW13 where he stated that he had not mentioned in the post mortem report that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the only contention that has been raised by the learned counsel, as noted above. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no merit therein. 10. It is a case where the appellant was armed with an iron rod and selected the most vulnerable part of the body of Ramesh. He caused first injury on his head. When Ramesh had fallen on the ground the appellant repeated blows with an iron rod 3-4 times. All injuries were caused by him on the head of Ramesh. The dimension of the injuries, as given in the post mortem report and the damage, the same caused, would clearly show it to be a case where the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It has clearly been mentioned in the post mortem report that the brain matter was lacerated and the brain cavity was full of blood. The doctor may not have mentioned that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature in post mortem report but he had certainly mentioned that death was due to head injuries which in our view were of the nature which were sufficient to cause death. It is a case, as mentioned above, that the appellant repeated blows 3-4 times and that too on the head. Nothing at all has been pointed out from the evidence of the eye witnesses from where it might appear that the appellant had caused injuries in a sudden fight as well. 11. We are of the considered view that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredients of section 300 IPC and the appellant in our view has rightly been convicted under section 302 IPC. 11. We are of the considered view that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredients of section 300 IPC and the appellant in our view has rightly been convicted under section 302 IPC. There is no merit whatsoever in this appeal, the same is thus dismissed upholding the order of conviction and sentence dated 4.9.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi.Appeal dismissed *******