JUDGMENT 1. The accused appeals. 2. The appellant, Bishwanath Mochi, was tried and convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The allegation against him is that at 10.00 p.m. on 27.12.1996, he entered the house of the deceased, Surajdeo Kumar, the husband of P.W. 1, Muni Devi, and beat him with wooden plank on the head and other parts of the body, leading to his death. 3. The facts are as follows: P.W.1, Muni Devi, is the wife of the deceased, Surajdeo Kumar, and P.W.3, Sukari Devi, is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was born to P.W.3 through her second husband. The appellant was residing in the same village. The appellant had to pay a sum of money to the deceased and two days prior to the date of incident, the deceased asked the appellant to return the said amount. A scuffle ensued and the deceased was beaten. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence 3. At about 10.00 p.m., the deceased, Surajdeo Kumar, who is a rickshaw puller by profession, was sitting in his house and was about to lake his dinner. The appellant, after breaking open the door, entered the room where the deceased was sitting to take his dinner and thereafter beat him with wooden plank on the head and on other parts of the body. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1, Muni Devi and P.W.3 Sukari Devi, who raised alarm and on hearing the cries, P.W.4, Tulsi Ram and P.W.5, Sakindar, as well as other villagers rushed to the place. The appellant ran away from the scene of occurrence. As it was night, P.W. 1 could not go to the police station and on the next day, i.e. on 28.12.1996, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave fardbeyan, Ext.4, which was recorded and a crime was registered. P.W.8, Anuj Kumar, took up investigation in the crime. 4. P.W.8, on taking up investigation, conducted inquest by preparing inquest report, Ext.5, and sent the body to the hospital for autopsy. 5. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.7, Dr. Birendra Prasad, conducted autopsy and he found the following injuries: 1. A big haematoma 3" x 2" over right temporal region of skull. 2. Bleeding from the nose. 3. Lacerated wound 2" x 1" x " over left thigh. 5. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.7, Dr. Birendra Prasad, conducted autopsy and he found the following injuries: 1. A big haematoma 3" x 2" over right temporal region of skull. 2. Bleeding from the nose. 3. Lacerated wound 2" x 1" x " over left thigh. The Doctor issued Ext.2, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased died on account of shock and hemorrhage due to the head injuries and that the said injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt substance. 6. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed and when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr. P.C. While he denied his complicity, came out with a versions that the deceased had been attacked by his step brother, P.W.6, Rajdeo Mochi. 7. Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, strenuously contends that the facts did not show that the appellant had any intention to attack the deceased. It is his further submission that since the Doctor found semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased, the case of the prosecution that he was attacked when he was about to take meals cannot be accepted. It is his further submission that P.W.6 must have attacked the deceased and a false case had been foisted upon him. On the above contention, we have heard Mrs. Banani Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the State. 8. The prosecution before the trial court, by examining the Doctor, P.W.7, and marking Ext.2, the post mortem certificate, issued by him, conclusively established that the deceased, Surajdeo Kumar, died on account of head injuries and that they are homicidal in nature. 9. P.W.1, the wife, and P.W.3, the mother of the deceased, were examined as eye-witnesses. The occurrence took place inside the house and therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 3 are natural witnesses as they were residing with the deceased in the same house. It is also not in dispute that P. Ws. 1 and 3 were also residing with along with the deceased. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, we find no reason to reject their evidence as we have stated that they are not only natural witnesses but also related to the deceased. It is also not in dispute that P. Ws. 1 and 3 were also residing with along with the deceased. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, we find no reason to reject their evidence as we have stated that they are not only natural witnesses but also related to the deceased. The occurrence had taken place at 10.00 p.m. and the complaint was given on the next day at the police station and the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.1 gave an explanation for not giving the complaint immediately after the occurrence as P.W.1 has stated that as the occurrence had taken place in the night, they could not go to the police station immediately thereafter and that they gave the complaint on the next day. In the fardbeyan, Ext.4, which is the first document to come into existence, the name of the assailant is found mentioned as the person who is responsible for the death of Surajdeo Kumar. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.3 is not only supported by P.W.7, the Doctor, but also supported by P.Ws.4 and 5, who rushed to the scene, to whom information was given. We, therefore, accept the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 that they were present in the house and witnessed the occurrence. 10. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that P.W.6 must have committed the murder is to be stated only to be rejected. If P.W.6 was the assailant, then P.W.1, wife of the deceased, would not have given false evidence by implicating the appellant. It is to be remembered that P.W.1, wife of the deceased, would have gained, if P.W.6 was implicated as an accused in the case, since the deceased and P.W.5 are the only legal heirs of P.W.3. We, therefore, do not accept the argument of the learned Counsel that P.W.6 would have committed the murder. 11. It is to be remembered that P.W.1, wife of the deceased, would have gained, if P.W.6 was implicated as an accused in the case, since the deceased and P.W.5 are the only legal heirs of P.W.3. We, therefore, do not accept the argument of the learned Counsel that P.W.6 would have committed the murder. 11. Similarly, we are also unable to accept that since the Doctor found semi- digested food in the stomach of the deceased, the occurrence could not have taken place at 10.00 p.m. It is to be remembered that the deceased was a rickshaw puller by profession and in the evening, it is possible that be would have taken some snacks and thereafter had come home to take dinner at 10.00 p.m. The Doctor found two ounce of semi-digested food and the quantity, which was found to be semi-digested, also shows that the deceased would have taken some snacks in the evening and from this, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. 12. The other contention of the counsel that there could not have been any intention on the part of the appellant is to be stated only to be rejected. It was the appellant who entered the house of the deceased, after breaking open the door. It was the appellant who had a wooden plank in his hand when he forcefully entered the house of the deceased. It was the appellant who beat the deceased who was sitting on the floor to take his meals. It was the appellant, who inflicted the said injuries on the vital part, namely, the head of the deceased. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant could not have had any intention for causing the death of the deceased. We, therefore, reject the said argument of the learned Counsel. 13. On the discussion made above, we are of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are to be confirmed and accordingly is confirmed. This appeal is dismissed.