JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated February 27, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one year. 2. It is the prosecution's case that on April 6, 2001 at 10.30 AM informant Islamuddin (Pw.2) submitted a written report (Ex.P-3) at Police Station Pragpura to the effect that on the said day around 8 AM Mohd. Siddique (appellant) opened fire at Gulam Nabi (father of informant) and caused injuries on his neck and hand as a result of which Gulam Nabi died on the spot. On that report a case was registered under sections 302 IPC and 3/27 Arms Act and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 CrPC, the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment took us through the material on record. 4. Death of Gulam Navi was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem report (Ex.P-14) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body : 1. Entry wound margins were inverted 1 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm at Antr. chest wall II ICS Rt. side. 2. Exit wound large triangular open wound in vertical structure of Antr. lower side of Rt. neck, blackening present all around the wound size 6 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm. 3. Lacerated wound 5'' x 4" involving all soft tissue upto bone at lower ⅓rd of dorsum of left hand wrist joint. 4. Entry wound in Rt. lumbar region Antr. abdo. Wall 2" x 2'' upto abdo. cavity. 5. lower side of Rt. neck, blackening present all around the wound size 6 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm. 3. Lacerated wound 5'' x 4" involving all soft tissue upto bone at lower ⅓rd of dorsum of left hand wrist joint. 4. Entry wound in Rt. lumbar region Antr. abdo. Wall 2" x 2'' upto abdo. cavity. 5. Exit wound 5'' x 3" x 4" first tissue come out from the wound side at left lumbar region margins blackened. 6. Haematoma 5 cm x 3 cm at ⅓rd at At. thigh intra surface. In the opinion of Dr. Girvar Singh Meena (Pw.12) the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of gunshot injury to chest & abdominal viscera. 5. We have pondered over the submissions. 6. Superstructure of prosecution case is founded on the testimony of informant Islamuddin (Pw.2), who deposed that on April 6, 2001 around 8 AM there were some altercations between the appellant and deceased. The appellant then took rifle and opened fire at the deceased that caused injuries on the hand, abdomen and neck of the deceased who died on the spot. Although Islamuddin was subjected to lengthy cross-examination his evidence could not be shattered. Testimony of Islamuddin gets support from the statements of Bacchu (Pw.3) and Jamaluddin (Pw.4). Although there are embellishments in the evidence, we find it consistent and trustworthy. There is nothing on record to show that these witnesses had enmity with the appellant. Their presence at the time of incident is natural. On examining their evidence from the point of view of trustworthiness we find them highly reliable witnesses. 7. Section 300 IPC does not define murder. It merely takes the four more serious types of culpable homicide, basing on the mens rea, and designates them murder. Their presence at the time of incident is natural. On examining their evidence from the point of view of trustworthiness we find them highly reliable witnesses. 7. Section 300 IPC does not define murder. It merely takes the four more serious types of culpable homicide, basing on the mens rea, and designates them murder. Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is done : (i) With the intention of causing death, or (ii) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or (iii) with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or (iv) with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above. 8. The prosecution in the instant case is able to establish that it was the appellant who intended to cause death of the deceased by gunshots. Thus charge under section 302 IPC is proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and we see no illegality in the impugned judgment. 9. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 IPC are maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******