Judgment ( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-7-1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 927/93, convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of two months, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2. ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that on 13-7-1993 at 11. 00 a. m. Rajendra Prasad Dubey (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who was also a physician went to see some patient at Shivrajpur on a bicycle and when he was returning back at 1. 00 p. m. along with the appellant at that juncture Vijay Kumar with his labourer Purushottam was planting bushes. When the deceased and appellant reached nearby the field of the deceased at that juncture deceased -made demand from appellant for repayment of loan amount of Rs. 1700/- which was outstanding against the deceased. The appellant told that he will repay the loan amount at that juncture cattle entered in the field of deceased as a result of which the deceased directed his brother Vijay Kumar to ward off the cattle. Thereafter Vijay Kumar started warding off cattle and his labourer Purushottam again started planting bushes. At that juncture appellant picked-up an axe and started giving its blows on the person of the deceased. On seeing the incident, Purushottam raised alarm and called Vijay Kumar who saw that appellant was causing injuries by axe to the deceased who on receiving the injuries fell down. ( 3. ) IT is further case of prosecution that Vijay Kumar and Purushottam both rushed towards the spot to rescue the deceased, but the appellant gave threat to Purushottam that in case he will give evidence against him he will chop him. On account of fear Purushottam fled from the place of occurrence. When Vijay Kumar arrived at the spot at that juncture appellant picked-up the axe and fled from the place of occurrence. The deceased died on the spot and his dead body was lying there in the field. ( 4. On account of fear Purushottam fled from the place of occurrence. When Vijay Kumar arrived at the spot at that juncture appellant picked-up the axe and fled from the place of occurrence. The deceased died on the spot and his dead body was lying there in the field. ( 4. ) THEREAFTER Vijay Kumar came to the village and narrated the incident to Shivsingh, Banshilal, Surendra, Badriprasad, Dev Krishna Dubey, Shivkumar etc. and thereafter he (Vijay) went to Saleemnabad Police Station and lodged the FIR. ( 5. ) ON the basis of the FIR criminal law was set in motion. The investigating agency in order to investigate the case arrived at the spot; seized the dead body and sent it for post-mortem; seized ordinary and blood stained earth; prepared necessary Panchnama; recorded the statement of the witnesses; arrested the accused and on the basis of his memorandum statement recovered the axe, which was used as weapon in the commission of the offence, from the bushes; seized blood stained towel and a shirt; sent blood stained articles for chemical examination and prepared spot map etc. ( 6. ) AFTER completing the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the Competent Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the Trial Court for its trial. ( 7. ) LEARNED Trial Judge on going through the charge-sheet framed a charge punishable under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of the deceased. Needless to emphasis, accused abjured the guilt. ( 8. ) IN order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and placed Exhs. P-1 to P-20, the documents on record. ( 9. ) THE defence of the accused is of maladroit implication. However, he did not choose to examine any witness in support of his defence. ( 10. ) LEARNED Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the accused/appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. In this manner the appellant has preferred present appeal assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court. ( 11. In this manner the appellant has preferred present appeal assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court. ( 11. ) IT has been vehemently submitted by Shri Geetesh Singh Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant that if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is considered in proper perspective it would be difficult to uphold the conviction. The contention is that there are serious infirmities, contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, learned Trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant. ( 12. ) AN alternative submission has also been put-forth by learned Counsel that even if it is held that on account of causing injuries by appellant the deceased had died, since there is no evidence that appellant and deceased were having inimical terms, looking to the peculiar fact that both, appellant and the deceased, came together from Village Shivrajpur and incident had occurred when deceased insisted appellant to repay the loan amount of Rs. 1700/- which was outstanding, thus according to the learned Counsel the case would not rest beyond the ambit and scope of Section 304, Part I, IPC. ( 13. ) ON the other hand, Shri Modh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/state argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that learned Trial Judge did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC. The contention of learned Dy. Advocate General is that looking to the nature of injuries which are seven in number and all of them have been caused on head, face and neck region and the blows which were dealt were so severe that on account of which trachea of the deceased was cut, therefore, learned Trial Judge did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh AIR2004 SC 1264 , 2004 Crilj931 , JT2003 (10 )SC 179 , RLW2004 (1 )SC 70 , 2003 (10 )SCALE842 , (2004 )12 SCC546 , 2004 (1 )UJ670 (SC ). ( 14. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 15. ( 14. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 15. ) IN the present case there are two eye-witnesses to the incident; they are P. W. 2 Vijay Kumar, who is brother of the deceased and P. W. 3 Purushottam, who is labourer of the deceased. We shall now examine the evidence of these two eye-witnesses one by one. ( 16. ) P. W. 2 Vijay Kumar has specifically stated that he was in his field along with his labourer Purushottam and both of them were planting bushes. At that juncture deceased had gone to Shivrajpur to see a patient and he came back from Shivrajpur along with the appellant. The deceased was insisting appellant to repay the loan amount which was still outstanding and this conversation was being taken place at a distance of about fifty feet from him. The appellant was saying that he will repay the loan amount in next week. At that juncture some cattle entered in his field and deceased directed this witness to ward off those cattle. Thereafter this witness became busy in warding off the cattle. At that juncture Purushottam shouted and requested Vijay Kumar to rush because appellant is causing axe blows to the deceased. This witness turned and saw that appellant was causing axe blows to the deceased. Immediately this witness and Purushottam rushed towards the spot in order to save deceased. On seeing these two persons coming to the place of occurrence appellant rushed towards the bushes carrying axe and scolded on Purushottam that if he will give evidence against him he will be chopped. Thereafter appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. ( 17. ) THEREAFTER it has been stated by P. W. 2 Vijay Kumar that he went to the police station and lodged the FIR (Exh. P-4 ). This witness has proved his signature on the FIR. According to him police party arrived at the spot and inspected the dead body. There is nothing in his cross-examination in order to disbelieve him. ) THEREAFTER it has been stated by P. W. 2 Vijay Kumar that he went to the police station and lodged the FIR (Exh. P-4 ). This witness has proved his signature on the FIR. According to him police party arrived at the spot and inspected the dead body. There is nothing in his cross-examination in order to disbelieve him. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that this witness was about 100-150 feet ahead from the place of occurrence and he was unable to see the incident because according to the learned Counsel it has come in the evidence of P. W. 3 Purushottam that crop of Arhar and Soyabeen was standing upto the height of 3-4 feet. Merely because the crop was standing upto the height of 3-4 feet would in itself is not ground to disbelieve the statement of this witness because height of crop was not that much so that a person could not see the incident. We do not agree with the submission of learned Counsel that this witness has not seen the incident because when he turned at that juncture appellant had already fled from the spot. This witness has categorically stated that on being screamed by P. W. 3 Purushottam he turned and saw that appellant was causing blows of axe on the person of the deceased. Thereafter this witness along with Purushottam rushed towards the place of occurrence and appellant gave threat not to give any evidence otherwise he will face dire consequences. Thereafter appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. This witness was cross-examined at length but he remained vivid in his version despite there being a roving cross-examination over him. After analyzing the evidence of this witness it can be inferred that appellant has dealt axe blows on the person of the deceased, as a result of which he died. It has come in the evidence of this witness that deceased was insisting appellant to repay the loan amount which was still outstanding and on that account the blows of axe were dealt by the appellant. ( 18. ) THE other eye-witness is P. W. 3 Purushottam who is labourer of the deceased as well as Vijay Kumar (P. W. 2), who is brother of the deceased. He has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 2, Vijay Kumar. ( 18. ) THE other eye-witness is P. W. 3 Purushottam who is labourer of the deceased as well as Vijay Kumar (P. W. 2), who is brother of the deceased. He has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 2, Vijay Kumar. According to this witness deceased was insisting appellant for the repayment of loan amount which was still outstanding and thereafter appellant picked-up an axe and dealt its blows on the person of the deceased. There are certain minor omissions and contradictions in his case-diary statement (Exh. D-1) that on being scolded by Rajendra he turned and saw the incident but why the factum of scolding by Rajendra is not mentioned he cannot say. According to us this will be a minor omission and will not dilute the evidence of this witness. After scrutinizing the evidence of this witness it has crept out that he saw the appellant causing injuries by axe on the person of the deceased. The evidence of this witness is clear, cogent and trustworthy. There is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve him. On the contrary evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of P. W. 2 Vijay Kumar. ( 19. ) THE evidence of eye-witnesses has been further corroborated by medical evidence. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. N. A. Ansari (P. W. 6 ). His post-mortem report is Exh. P-5, in which he found the following injuries: (1) Incisd wound 3" x 1" x 2" deep left parietal region of head lying on the posteriorly with underlying fracture of left parietal bone and laceration of brain matter underneath. (2) Incised wound 2" x 0. 5" x skin deep left side of the face, transversely. (3) Incised wound transverse 3" x 1" x muscle deep left side neck upper part. (4) Incised wound transverse 2. 5" x 1" x muscle deep left side neck below injury Nos. 2 and 3. (5) Incised wound transverse 3" x 1" x muscle deep left side of neck below injury No. 4. (6) Incised wound transverse 3" x 1" x trachea deep front and upper part of neck. (7) Incised wound oblique 2" x 0. 5" x skin deep lateral and middle left forearm. The doctor in his post-mortem report has specifically mentioned that these injuries can be caused by axe. (6) Incised wound transverse 3" x 1" x trachea deep front and upper part of neck. (7) Incised wound oblique 2" x 0. 5" x skin deep lateral and middle left forearm. The doctor in his post-mortem report has specifically mentioned that these injuries can be caused by axe. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock as a result of head injury. We have already noticed hereinabove that injury No. 1 is on parietal region of the head and the blow was so forcefully dealt on account of which not only the parietal bone was fractured but also brain matter also came out. The autopsy surgeon has further stated that injury No. 1 which was on head was sufficient to cause death "on the spot" . ( 20. ) AFTER the appellant was arrested at his instance an axe was seized and the same was sent to the doctor and vide Exh. P-6 the doctor after examining the axe gave his opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the axe. Thus, we are of the view that on account of causing injuries by axe to the deceased he died. We have also given our anxious and bestowed consideration to the reasoning assigned by learned Judge and we find them to be quite cogent as they are based on proper appreciation of evidence. ( 21. ) WE shall now deal alternative submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that looking to the genesis of the occurrence at the most the case would rest under Section 304, Part I, IPC. The contention of learned Counsel is that there is nothing on record and there is no evidence of the prosecution in regard to the enmity between appellant and deceased. On the contrary it has come in the evidence that both of them were coming together from Village Shivrajpur. According to the leaned Counsel it has come in the evidence of the eye-witnesses that deceased was insisting appellant for repayment of loan amount of Rs. 1700/- and thereafter the incident had taken place and, therefore, since there is no premeditation or enmity between the parties and the incident had occurred in a spur of moment, the case would not rest beyond Section 304, Part I, IPC. 1700/- and thereafter the incident had taken place and, therefore, since there is no premeditation or enmity between the parties and the incident had occurred in a spur of moment, the case would not rest beyond Section 304, Part I, IPC. The argument though at the first blush appears to be quite attractive, however, on deeper scrutiny we find the same to be devoid of any substance. True, there is no evidence on record that there was enmity between the parties. It is equally true that appellant and deceased both came together from Village Shivrajpur, it is also equally true that deceased was insisting appellant for the repayment of loan amount which was outstanding and at that juncture appellant picked-up an axe and dealt its blows on the person of the deceased. ( 22. ) ACCORDING to us, had there been no intention of appellant to kill the deceased, he would not have dealt repeated blows and that too on the vital organs of the body, like head, neck and face of the deceased. The blow on the head was so forceful on account of which not only the bone was cut, but brain matter also came out. Similarly the injury on the neck was also very severe as injury No. 6 was trachea deep. In the case of Dhool Singh (supra), there was single blow caused by the accused on the neck region of the victim cutting major vessels and in that case the Supreme Court held that the case would be under Section 302, IPC and not under Section 304 Part II, IPC as held by the High Court. However, the given case in hand is more serious because there are as many as seven blows of axe brutally dealt on the vital organs of the body of the deceased, like head, face and neck, therefore, we are of the view that the appellant did commit the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. ( 23. ) RESULTANTLY, this appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed.