JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Ramkalyan faced trial u/s. 302 IPC for intentionally causing death of Rameshwar. The trial resulted in finding him guilty for offence u/s. 302 IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo Rl for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one year. He has also been found guilty u/s. 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months' SI and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for fifteen days. The judgment has been passed on 16.9.2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. 2. Occurrence leading to death of Rameshwar, as per prosecution case, took place in the midnight of 27th and 28th April, 1999. FIR with regard to the incident was lodged on the same night at 1.45 a.m. by Nathi widow of the deceased in whose presence her husband Rameshwar was done to death. FIR has since been proved as Ex.D.1 on the records of the case. 3. While unfolding the prosecution case, Nathi stated in the FIR lodged by her that she was resident of Village Kableshwar. Their fields and the Well were located near the school in Kableshwar. They had made temporary hutment (Kaccha house) in their fields and were residing in the same. On 28.4.1999, she was sleeping near the well in the fields whereas her husband Rameshwar was sleeping outside the house. At about 11 -12 at night, appellant Ramkalyan son of Bheru Lai came near to her cot upon which she asked him as to who was he. He replied by giving his name as Ramkalyan. She asked him as to why he had come at night. In the meanwhile, she called her husband Rameshwar who came running there. There was a fight between appellant Ramkalyan and her husband. The appellant gave knife blow on the chest of her husband which caused injury to him. His vest was soaked in blood. Her husband became unconscious and Ram Kalyan run towards the fields. When she cried for help, villagers came running there. After sometime, her husband died because of the injury sustained by him. She further stated that there was no enmity between them and the appellant. She also stated that Ramkalyan had left his one shoe at the spot which was of black colour. 4. When she cried for help, villagers came running there. After sometime, her husband died because of the injury sustained by him. She further stated that there was no enmity between them and the appellant. She also stated that Ramkalyan had left his one shoe at the spot which was of black colour. 4. During the course of trial, prosecution examined Dr. R.D. Sharma as PW-13. He stated that he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Rameshwar on 29.4.1999. The doctor proved post mortem report Ex. P14 which described injuries on the dead body of Rameshwar. In the opinion of doctor, Rameshwar had died because of syncope due to penetrating wound. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Nathi examined as PW-6, the only eye witness of the occurrence, deposed in tune with the FIR lodged by her. In cross-examination, she stated that she knew appellant earlier as well. The two families were on good terms. There was no dispute between their families. There was no litigation also pending between the two families. The appellant had not snatched away anything. She denied the suggestion that the appellant was invited by her and that she was having illicit relations with the appellant. She also denied the suggestion that when she had invited the appellant, her husband had seen it and, therefore, there was a fight between the two. Prosecution also examined PW-2 Daulat Ram, PW-8 Bansidhar son of Harbux, PW-9 Dinesh and PW-11 Bansidhar son of Kalyan Sahai who deposed that on the eventful night they had seen the appellant coming from house of the deceased. Prosecution also proved recovery of shoe from the place of occurrence. On disclosure statement made by the appellant, police also 1 recovered a knife. The same was sent for chemical examination and was found to have blood stains of 'B' group. PW-15 Ramawatar and PW-16 Khubaram supported recovery of knife made from the appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement. Police also recovered vest and underwear of the s deceased which too were sent for chemical examination. These were also found to be stained with blood of 'B' group. There is no need at ali to give further details of the case. Suffice is it however to mention that while examined u/s. 313 Cr.RC. Police also recovered vest and underwear of the s deceased which too were sent for chemical examination. These were also found to be stained with blood of 'B' group. There is no need at ali to give further details of the case. Suffice is it however to mention that while examined u/s. 313 Cr.RC. the appellant besides denying the incriminating material put to him, further stated that he had been falsely involved in the case. Appellant led 1 no evidence in defence. 5. Learned counsel representing the appellant, despite impressive array of facts leading towards an irresistible conclusion that the appellant had killed Rameshwar, still contends that there was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased Rameshwar. In fact, families of the two were having cordial 1 relations and once there was no motive for the appellant to commit the crime, it has to be presumed that the appellant was invited by Nathi which lead to altercation between the appellant and Rameshwar and in the process of fight, knife accidentally hit Rameshwar. Learned counsel further submits that in case the contention aforesaid is not accepted by this Court, then it is a case of s single injury and the offence committed by the appellant would at the most be covered u/s. 304 Part-II IPC. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined records of the case. 7. In the context of facts and circumstances of the case, we, however, ; find no merit whatsoever in any of the contentions of the learned counsel, as noted above. It may be recalled that FIR in the present case came to be lodged within an hour and a half from the time of occurrence. In short span, Nathi, the hapless widow, would have no time to consult and thus exaggerate the prosecution case. She is a natural witness of the occurrence as the same : took place at dead of night in her own house. Her presence in her own house at that hour of the night is absolutely natural. She, as mentioned above, has fully supported the prosecution case. Nothing at all has been elicited from her even in cross-examination which might remotely suggest that it was a case of grappling with each other and an accidental case of injury having been : sustained by Rameshwar. She, as mentioned above, has fully supported the prosecution case. Nothing at all has been elicited from her even in cross-examination which might remotely suggest that it was a case of grappling with each other and an accidental case of injury having been : sustained by Rameshwar. Positive version of Nathi is that the appellant had struck a knife blow in the chest of her husband. This testimony of Nathi needs acceptance. That apart, prosecution led sufficient corroboration to the version of Nathi. The weapon of offence, i.e. Knife, was recovered from the appellant on his disclosure statement. Two witnesses examined in support of this part of the case have also fully supported the prosecution case. Sufficient corroboration is also forthcoming from the statements made by PWs 2, 8, 9 and 11 who had seen the appellant coming from the house of the deceased at the time and date as suggested by Nathi. The prosecution also connected knife, the weapon of offence, with the crime inasmuch as the same was found stained with human blood of Group 'B' and the deceased too had the same blood group as would be proved from the vest and the underwear that he was wearing at the time of occurrence. 8. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel with regard to the nature of offence is concerned, suffice is it to mention that the appellant selected most vulnerable part of the body of Rameshwar. It may be a case of single blow but considering that the injury was caused at the vulnerable part of the body and in the opinion of the doctor the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it cannot be said that the offence committed by the appellant could fall u/s. 304 Part-II IPC. It may be mentioned here that it is not even case of the appellant that the wordy dual had taken place before the occurrence or that some provocation had been caused by the deceased which might have actuated the appellant to give knife blow. Present is open and shut case and there is no scope at all for any argument. The prosecution, it appears to us, has established its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 9. Present is open and shut case and there is no scope at all for any argument. The prosecution, it appears to us, has established its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 9. The appeal is totally devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, thus upholding the order of conviction and sentence dated 16.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa.Appeal dismissed. *******