A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in S. C. No. 815 of 2003 preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge, karimnagar, dated 26-11-2004. He was charged for the offence under Section 302 of indian Penal Code for allegedly killing one dayya Suresh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by beating with a stick on his head on 10-10-2002 at about 11. 30 p. m. Through the said judgment the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story as narrated during the course of trial, in brief, is as follows: the deceased is the husband of P. W. 1 and was the Sarpanch of Dabbuthimmaiahpalli village. In the elections of the Gram Panchayat conducted in the year 2001 the deceased was elected as Sarpanch by defeating the elder brother of the accused. On the date of occurrence. e. on 10-10-2002 in the night a marriage procession was being taken in the village. P. W. 5, a resident of Kodmail village and a relation of the deceased has a casual visit to Dabbuthimmaiahpalli village. P. W. 5, the accused and P. Ws. 2, 3 and 6 had participated in the said procession. In the said procession, there was an altercation between the accused and P. W. 5. P. W. 5 went to the house of the deceased along with P. Ws. 2, 3 and 6 and reported the matter to him and on that, the latter advised that the matter could be settled on the next day. The deceased, however, followed P. Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6 from his house into the marriage procession. When the procession reached the bus-stand, the accused beat the deceased with a stout stick on his head, as a result of which, the deceased fell down. When P. W. 2 tried to intervene, the accused beat him on his right leg. P. W. 2 went to the house of the deceased and informed to p. W. 1, the wife of the deceased about the attack by the accused and thereafter, P. Ws. 1, 2 and others took the deceased to the government Area Hospital, Jagtial, where he was declared dead. On the next morning, p. W. 1 lodged Ex. P. W. 2 went to the house of the deceased and informed to p. W. 1, the wife of the deceased about the attack by the accused and thereafter, P. Ws. 1, 2 and others took the deceased to the government Area Hospital, Jagtial, where he was declared dead. On the next morning, p. W. 1 lodged Ex. P. 1 complaint with P. W. 11, the Sub-inspector of police, who registered a case in Crime No. 87 of 2002 and issued First information Report Ex. P. 6. P. W. 12, Circle inspector of Police took up the investigation, visited the Government Hospital, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 7 and another, seized m. O. 2 lungi and M. O. 3 bloodstained shirt under the inquest Ex. P-2, examined P. Ws. 1 to 6 and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared a panchanama of scene of offence under Ex. P-3, seized M. O. 1 stick and M. Os. 4 and 5 bloodstained and control earth respectively, and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. P. W. 10, the medical officer, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the head injury and issued Ex. P. 5/a post mortem report. After conclusion of the investigation, P. W. 12 laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302. P. C. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P. Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-12 and exhibited m. Os. 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, nooral evidence was adduced, but Ex. D-1 the portion of 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 2 was marked. The learned Sessions Judge after completion of the trial and on thorough scrutiny of the evidence found the appellant-accused guilty for the offence under Section 302. P. C. and sentenced him as indicated above. Assailing the correctness of the judgment of the lowercourt, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal. ( 4 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would contend that the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea of the appellant to kill the deceased. Even according to the prosecution witnesses. e. P. Ws. Assailing the correctness of the judgment of the lowercourt, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal. ( 4 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would contend that the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea of the appellant to kill the deceased. Even according to the prosecution witnesses. e. P. Ws. 3 and 6, the appellant- accused inflicted only one blow on the head of the deceased, bur the post-mortem report goes to show that there are as many as seven injuries. Therefore, he contends that in the absence of any motive attributed to the appellant-accused and since the medical evidence is not corroborating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, who uniformly stated that a single blow was inflicted by the appellant- accused with M. O. 1 -stick, there is any amount of doubt with regard to the commission of the offence by the appellant-accused and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court for the offence under section 302. P. C. is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Additional public Prosecutor while sustaining the judgment of the lower Court contended that since the deceased died on the spot that itself shows the intention of the appellant-accused. He drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of P. W. 2, who stated that the accused beat the deceased with M. O. 1 stick on his head and even after the deceased fell down, the accused made further attack on his head. Therefore, he contends that the evidence of p. W. 2 is sufficient to prove that the accused- appellant beat the deceased with a view to kill him and therefore, the lower Court rightly convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 302. P. C. and the same do not require any interference by this Court. ( 6 ) IN view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt to record the conviction and sentence and whether the judgment of the lower Court requires any interference by this Court? ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased, who gave Ex. P. 1 complaint. Admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the incident. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased, who gave Ex. P. 1 complaint. Admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the incident. She stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 11. 30 p. m. P. W. 2 came to her house and informed that the accused beat the deceased with a stick near the bus-stand during the marriage procession and the deceased died on the spot. Herself and her mother-in-law went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased. She stated that the elder brother of the accused contested in the gram panchayat elections held in 2001 and was defeated by the deceased. ( 8 ) P. W. 2, who is stated to be the eyewitness to the incident stated that on the date of occurrence there was a marriage procession in the village at about 11. 00 p. m. Himself, p. Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were in the procession and there was an altercation between the accused and P. W. 5 and they separated them without further quarreling. P. W. 5 went to the deceased, who was sleeping in his house and informed the latter about the quarrel. He too went to the house of the deceased. The deceased informed P. W. 5 that the matter could be settled in the next morning. Thereafter, himself, p. Ws. 3, 5 and 6 came out of the house and were witnessing the procession. The deceased also joined them and proceeded ahead of them. When the procession reached the bus-stand, near the house of P. W. 8, while he was talking with P. W. 5, found the accused beating the deceased with M. O. 1 stick on his head. The deceased sustained bleeding injury on his head and even after the deceased fell down, the accused made further attack on his head. When he intervened, the accused beat him also on his right leg, as a result of which, he too received an injury. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not in the village on the date of occurrence and had not witnessed any incident. Nothing contrary is elicited from the cross-examination of P. W. 2. When he intervened, the accused beat him also on his right leg, as a result of which, he too received an injury. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not in the village on the date of occurrence and had not witnessed any incident. Nothing contrary is elicited from the cross-examination of P. W. 2. ( 9 ) P. W. 3, who is another eyewitness to the occurrence, stated about the accused attacking the deceased with M. O. 1 stick on his head, due to which, he fell down and died. Himself, p. Ws. 2, 5, and 6 witnessed the incident. P. W. 4 stated that he had participated in the procession along with P. Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, he stated that he came to know that the accused killed the deceased. He admitted that he is not an eyewitness to the incident. ( 10 ) P. W. 5, stated that in the marriage procession, the accused quarreled with him and he informed the same to the deceased at his house. The deceased advised him that the matter could be settled on the next day. Himself, P. Ws. 2, 3 and 6 came out of the house of the deceased and joined in the procession. The deceased also came out of the house and joined in the procession. In the said procession, the accused beat the deceased with M. O. 1 stick on his dead, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and died. Himself and others took the deceased to the hospital, where he was declared dead. P. W. 6, who accompanied P. W. 2 to the house of the deceased, also corroborated the evidence of P. W. 2 and 5 about the accused beating the deceased with M. O. 1 stick. P. W. 8, who is a panch witness, speaks about the seizure of M. O. 1 on the confessional statement made by the accused. P. W. 10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found the following injuries: "1. Lacerated wound on the frontal area 1 x 1 " x 1/2" with fracture of both frontal bones 2. Lacerated wound on the left eye brow 1" x " x " 3. Lacerated wound on the upperlip 1" x 1/2" x 1" with loss of upper Incelssor teeth. 4. Lacerated wound on the frontal area 1 x 1 " x 1/2" with fracture of both frontal bones 2. Lacerated wound on the left eye brow 1" x " x " 3. Lacerated wound on the upperlip 1" x 1/2" x 1" with loss of upper Incelssor teeth. 4. Lacerated wound on the lower lip 1 "x " X 1/2" 5. Fracture of left partial and temporal bones present. 6. Fracture of nasal bones. 7. Laceration of brain matter meninges and tear of cerebral vessels with intra carinal haemorrhage. " He opined that the above injuries are possible with M. O. 1 and they are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would contend that except P. W. 2, all other eyewitnesses stated that the accused inflicted only one blow on the deceased and P. W. 2, who is said to have received injury to his right leg, was not sent to the hospital. Further, the injuries 1, 5 and 6 are possible with one blow and as per the evidence of the doctor, the injury Nos. 2 and 3 are possible by a fall on the ground. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302. P. C. as there is no intention for him to kill the deceased. ( 12 ) AS seen from the above evidence, the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident. e. P. Ws. 2 to 6 is corroborating with each other with regard to the attack made by the accused on the deceased. As already observed, P. W. 2 in his evidence categorically stated that even after the deceased fell on the ground, the accused made further attack on his head and when he tried to intervene, he was also beaten by the accused on his right leg and he too received injury. Merely because P. W. 2 was not sent to the hospital for treatment of the injury, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve his evidence. Further, his evidence is corroborating in all material aspects with the evidence of the other eyewitnesses. The evidence of the doctor also corroborates the evidence of P. W. 2 that the deceased received as many as seven injuries. Further, his evidence is corroborating in all material aspects with the evidence of the other eyewitnesses. The evidence of the doctor also corroborates the evidence of P. W. 2 that the deceased received as many as seven injuries. ( 13 ) THE Apex Court in Subhash Shamrao pachunde v. State of Maharashtra ( (2006) 1 SCC (Crl) 388) held that to bring a case within the exception 4 of Section 300. P. C. the following ingredients are to be shown: " (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in the heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant has not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. " But, in the case on hand, none of the ingredients are established to take the fourth exception appended to Section 300. P. C. On the other hand, the act of the appellant- accused about his giving further blows with M. O. 1 even after the deceased falling on the ground, clearly discloses his intention to kill the deceased. ( 14 ) AFTER going through the entire evidence and the reasoning adopted by the lower Court, we concur, we concur with the view taken by the lower Court that the appellant-accused committed the murder of the deceased by inflicting multiple blows with M. O. 1 on the deceased resulting in instantaneous death. In view of the same, no lenient view can be taken to bring the offence under exception 4 of section 300. P. C. for convicting him for a lesser offence. ( 15 ) IN the result, the Criminal appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the lower Court is confirmed in all respects. .