A. L. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, at Navsari, on 19th April, 1997, in Sessions Case No. 70 of 1996, recording conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and ordering him to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that, on 10th January, 1996, at about 14-30 hours, deceased-Laxmanbhai Gulabbhai Patel was going to his field in company of one Bhanabhai Gopalbhai. The deceased and the present appellant had some previous disputes regarding irrigation of fields. While the deceased was going to his field in a bullock-cart on the outskirts of village Kukeri of taluka Chikhli, appellant-Bachubhai Chhaganbhai, allegedly rushed with an iron hammer and inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased. As a result of the blow, the deceased sustained furniture of the skull and collapsed on-the-spot. Bhanabhai Gopalbhai, who had witnessed the incident was scared and fled away from the spot, and immediately, informed Manubhai Gulabbhai, brother of the deceased, who in turn, rushed to the spot to find that his brother was seriously injured, was bleeding and was unconscious. He, therefore, took steps to take the injured to hospital in a vehicle. It is the case of the prosecution that, on the way to hospital, the injured regained consciousness and stated that he was assaulted upon by the appellant-accused with a hammer. Ultimately, the injured laxmanbhai, succumbed to the injuries. 1]. Manubhai Gulabbhai lodged an F. I. R. (Exh. 18), on the basis of which an offence was registered and the investigation started. On the basis of the material collected during the investigation, the investigating agency filed charge-sheet before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Chikhali, Since, the offence with which the appellant was charged was an offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikhli, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 2]. When the case became ripe for trial, charge was framed against the appellant-accused, at Exh. 2, for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian penal Code. 2]. When the case became ripe for trial, charge was framed against the appellant-accused, at Exh. 2, for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. 3]. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, came to a conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing the charge against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and recorded conviction for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after affording an opportunity to the accused to address the Court on question of quantum of punishment, sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, as stated above. It is against this judgment and order that the present appeal is preferred. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Vyas, for the appellant submitted that the trial court committed an error in appreciating the evidence and recording conviction. He submitted that the first informant, Manubhai Gulabbhai, is the brother of the deceased, and is therefore, an interested witness, He further submitted that the first informant is not an eye-witness. The witness did speak about the deceased having made an oral dying declaration before him implicating the appellant, but this version is doubtful, as can be seen from the deposition of Dr. Ramchandra patil, Mr. Vyas, therefore, submitted that the evidence of the first informant, manubhai Gulabbhai, therefore, ought not to have been given any credence. 1]. As regards the evidence of Bhanabhai Gopalbhai (Exh. 20), Mr. Vyas submitted that the conduct of the witness is very unnatural. He said that he had fled away from the place. Ordinarily, in such eventuality, a person would try to intervene or to help the victim, instead, he fled from the place, which is unnatural, which would render his deposition unworthy of credence, As regards witness, Chhaganbhai Nagarbhai, Mr. Vyas submitted that he only stated about the dying declaration having been made by the deceased while going to the hospital. This version also is doubtful in view of deposition of Dr. Ramchandra patil, and therefore, there is no reliable or authentic evidence to implicate the appellant. Mr. Vyas submitted that the trial Court committed an error in not appreciating the above aspects and in recording conviction on the basis of the above pieces of evidence. 2]. Mr. This version also is doubtful in view of deposition of Dr. Ramchandra patil, and therefore, there is no reliable or authentic evidence to implicate the appellant. Mr. Vyas submitted that the trial Court committed an error in not appreciating the above aspects and in recording conviction on the basis of the above pieces of evidence. 2]. Mr. Vyas also submitted that history of animosity is an admitted fact, and therefore, chances of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed, the judgment and order recording conviction may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges for which he is convicted. ( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Prachchhak, has opposed this appeal. According to him, involvement of the appellant in the incident is categorically made out from deposition of eye-witness, Bhana Gopal. The first informant does not claim to be an eye-witness, but this version about the deceased having made oral dying declaration gets corroborated by deposition of Chhaganbhai nagarbhai, who is an independent person. The admission of the Doctor in cross-examination that the may not have regained consciousness after having once lost, it is only a hypothetical answer and may not be given undue weightage. Mr. Prachchhak submitted that, assuming for a moment that the version about the oral dying declaration cannot be accepted, then also there is deposition of bhanabhai Gopalbhai, who is an eye-witness to the incident. His deposition cannot be discarded only on the ground that be behaved in particular manner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in Rana pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680 . Mr. Prachchhak therefore, submitted that the trial Court has considered all these aspects while recording conviction, and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. ( 5 ) WE have given consideration to rival side contentions in light of the evidence recorded by the trial Court. We have been taken through the record and proceedings by learned Advocate for the appellant as well as learned additional Public Prosecutor. ( 6 ) THE prosecution has examined following witnesses : (1) P. W. No. 1 Ajjhusen Ahmed Shaikh , at Exh. 14 (2) P. W. No. 2 Rameshbhai Khandubhai , at Exh. 16 (3) P. W. No. 3 Manubhai Gulabbhai , at Exh. ( 6 ) THE prosecution has examined following witnesses : (1) P. W. No. 1 Ajjhusen Ahmed Shaikh , at Exh. 14 (2) P. W. No. 2 Rameshbhai Khandubhai , at Exh. 16 (3) P. W. No. 3 Manubhai Gulabbhai , at Exh. 17 (4) P. W. No. 4 Bhanabhai Gopalbhai , at Exh. 20 (5) P. W. No. 5 Chhaganbhai Nagarbhai , at Exh. 21 (6) P. W. No. 6 Ramchandra Pandharinath Patil , at Exh. 22 ( 7 ) THE prosecution has relied on following documentary evidence : (1) Charge, at Exh. 2 (2) Inquest Panchnama , at Exh. 6 (3) Panchnama of the scene of offence, at Exh. 7 (4) Arrest Panchnama , at Exh. 8 (5) Panchnama of Muddamal Clothes, at Exh. 9 (6) F. S. L. Report, at Exh. 20 (7) Serological Report at Exh. 11 (8) Map, at Exh. 12 (9) Panchnama of Muddamal Article No. 5, at Exh. 15 (10) F. I. R. at Exh. 18 (11) Yadi , at Exh. 23 24 (13) Post Mortem Report, at Exh. 25 (14) Certificate regarding cause of death, at Exh. 26 (15) Entry in Police Station Diary, at Exh. 28 (16) Yadi , at Exh. (12) Yadi , at Exh. 29 (17) Report of P. S. I. at Exh. 30 (18) Yadi sent to F. S. L. at Exh. 32 (19) Receipt for Muddamal , at Exh. 33 ( 8 ) EYE-WITNESS, Bhanabhai Gopalbhai, is examined at Exh. 20. He said that, on 10th January, 1996, at about 2-30 p. m. , they were going to the field. At the time, the appellant was working in a stone-quarry. When the cart reached near the quarry, the appellant rushed with an iron hammer and inflicted a blow on the hind portion of the head. As a result of the blow, Laxman fell down and he (the witness) fled away from the place out of fear. The witness said that he rushed to Manubhai Gulabbhai, the brother of the deceased, and told him about the incident. 1]. The witness said that the hammer had a handle of about 2 feet length and the hammer was squarish. He identified muddamal Art. No. 5 as the hammer which was used in commission of the offence. The witness identified the clothes of the deceased. 1]. The witness said that the hammer had a handle of about 2 feet length and the hammer was squarish. He identified muddamal Art. No. 5 as the hammer which was used in commission of the offence. The witness identified the clothes of the deceased. The witness was cross-examined, and in the cross-examination, in reply to the suggestions made, the witness stated that the deceased was assaulted while he was in the cart. The appellant had not climbed up the cart, but he inflicted blow while standing on the road. He also asserted that the appellant had inflicted only one blow and not two to three blows. He also stated that the bullocks also were scared and they ran away making Laxman fall. ( 9 ) FIRST informant, Manubhai Gulabbhai, is examined at Exh. 17. He said that, on 10th January, 1996, while he was at home, Bhanabhai Gopalbhai told him that a hammer blow was given by Bachubhai on the hind portion of the head of Laxmanbhai. On learning about this, the witness himself and others like Chimanbhai, Babubhai and Manubhai rushed to the spot where Laxmanbhai was lying. He was profusely bleeding, and therefore, he was carried home and then he was taken to hospital, at Chikhli, in a tractor. After rendering initial treatment, the Doctor advised them to go to Navsari, and therefore, they went to Navsari. The Doctor at Navsari, on examining Laxmanbhai, declared him dead. The witness stated that deceased-Laxmanbhai regained consciousness while he was being taken to Chikhli hospital and said that Bachubhai had caused the injury on his head with a hammer. He was told by the deceased that the injury was caused because of long drawn dispute regarding irrigation of fields. The witness said that he lodged the F. I. R. on 11-1-1996 at about 2-30 p. m. The witness has been cross-examined. In the cross-examination, he stated that, while the deceased-Laxmanbhai was being taken to the hospital, the deceased only said that Bachubhai had given hammer blow on his head. ( 10 ) WITNESS-CHHAGANBHAI Nagarbhai (Exh. 21) said that he was with the first informant and the deceased when the deceased was being taken to the hospital. He was informed that the deceased expired because of hammer blow given by bachubhai. ( 11 ) WITNESS-DR. Ramchandra P. Patil (Exh. ( 10 ) WITNESS-CHHAGANBHAI Nagarbhai (Exh. 21) said that he was with the first informant and the deceased when the deceased was being taken to the hospital. He was informed that the deceased expired because of hammer blow given by bachubhai. ( 11 ) WITNESS-DR. Ramchandra P. Patil (Exh. 22) said that he had performed post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. He described the external injuries recorded in Paragraph 17 of the Post mortem Notes and deposed that there were corresponding internal injuries. He said that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of death was extradural and subdural haemorrhage, which were possible with the hammer. The witness has been cross-examined. He stated that it was possible that the victim, after having become unconscious, may not have regained consciousness till he died. 1]. The Post mortem Notes are at Exh. 5/8, wherein the doctor has opined that the cause of death of Laxmanbhai Gulabbhai Patel was extradural, intradural and intracranial haemorrhage. ( 12 ) WITNESS-AZIZUSSAIN Miyamohammad Shaikh (Exh. 14) is the Panch witness in whose presence the weapon-hammer was discovered by the appellant. It was noticed to be in a bloodstained condition. The F. S. L. report confirmed this. ( 13 ) FROM the above pieces of evidence, what emerges is that the first informant, Manubhai Gulabbhai (Exh. 4), brother of Bhanabhai Gulabbhai, in terms stated that they were going in a bullock-cart to the field when the appellant, who was working in his stone-quarry, rushed to the bullock-cart of the deceased and inflicted a hammer blow on the hind portion of the head of the deceased. As a result of the injury, the deceased collapsed and witness-Bhanabhai gopalbhai had fled away from the place and rushed to and informed the brother of the deceased, namely, Manubhai, about the incident, two in turn lodged the F. I. R. 1]. If the deposition of Bhanabhai Gopalbhai is seen, though he is an eye-witness to the incident, he does not say anything which may attract any of the exceptions to Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence clearly implicates the appellant with the incident of having given a hammer blow on the head of the deceased. If the deposition of Bhanabhai Gopalbhai is seen, though he is an eye-witness to the incident, he does not say anything which may attract any of the exceptions to Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence clearly implicates the appellant with the incident of having given a hammer blow on the head of the deceased. There is no chance of any false implication of the appellant by the eye-witness, Bhana Gopal, as he has no axe to grind against the appellant. The version gets corroborated by oral dying declaration made by the deceased while he was being taken to the hospital, which also implicates the appellant. An attempt has been made to assail this version of Manubhai as well as Chhaganbhai Nagarbhai on the basis of an admission by the doctor in the cross-examination that the deceased might not have regained consciousness after having lost it once because of the injury. The answer, though coming from an expert, is purely hypothetical and is not very emphatic. He only admits the possibility, whereas witness, Manubhai Gulabbhai and Chhaganbhai Nagarbhai, assertively and in terms say that the deceased had regained consciousness temporarily and stated that the appellant had inflicted the hammer blow on him. As such, there is no reason to brush aside or doubt or disbelieve the say of witness, Manubhai Gulabbhai and Chhaganbhai Nagarbhai. The oral dying declaration is only an additional piece of evidence which lends further assurance to the Court for accepting the version of Bhanabhai Gopalbhai. ( 14 ) THE version given by Bhanabhai Gopalbhai does not suffer from any defect. He is an independent person. His presence at the place is natural, and he immediately after the incident, informs the first informant, Manubhai gulabbhai, who in turn rushes to the spot. Deposition of Bhanabhai Gopalbhai cannot be discarded only because he did not try to intervene or rescue the deceased. Different persons react in different manner to any given incident, depending upon their individual personality. In this regard, the judgment of the hon ble Apex Court, in the case of Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana, air 1983 SC 680 , relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, can be profitably referred to. In that decision, the Apex Court, in Paragraph 6 observed thus :"every person who witness a murder reacts in is own way. v. State of Haryana, air 1983 SC 680 , relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, can be profitably referred to. In that decision, the Apex Court, in Paragraph 6 observed thus :"every person who witness a murder reacts in is own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly inartistic and unimaginative way. "in view of the above observations of the Hon ble Apex Court, The argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant that because the witness did not react in a particular, he is not telling the truth cannot be accepted. ( 15 ) THUS, involvement of the appellant in the incident is clearly established. The only question that, now, remains to be examined is whether the case can fall within any of the exceptions of Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard, we have given a close scrutiny to the deposition of Bhanabhai Gopal, who is an eye-witness to the incident. From his deposition, what emerges is that the deceased and deceased and Bhanabhai were going in the bullock-cart when suddenly the appellant rushed to the cart with a hammer with which he was working and inflicted a blow on the hind portion of the head of the deceased, which ultimately, resulted into the death of the deceased. There was no exchange of words, there was no provocation, there was no scuffle and there was no reason for the appellant to lose his self-control. It is not even the case set out during the entire trial either in the cross-examination or in the statement under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention regarding the case falling under any of the exceptions to sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 16 ) DR. It is not even the case set out during the entire trial either in the cross-examination or in the statement under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention regarding the case falling under any of the exceptions to sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 16 ) DR. Ramchandra Patil, who had performed the post mortem, is examined at Exh. 22. He, in terms, says that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The nature of injury speaks volumes about the force with which the blow must have been given. The weapon used is a hammer used by quarrymen. Differently put, the hammer is not an ordinary household domestic hammer, but a heavy hammer used for stone-breaking. A blow on head with such a hammer resulting into serious injuries as recorded by the Doctor in the post mortem notes as well as his deposition leaves no scope for treating this case as one falling in any of the exceptions of Sec. 300. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, there appears not any merit in the appeal. The trial Court has given due consideration to all relevant aspects. We have gone through the judgment and order. We agree with the reasonings adopted and conclusions reached by the trial Court and confirm the same. As a consequence, the appeal must fail and stands dismissed. (HSS) Appeal dismissed.