Judgment :- D.D. Sinha, J. Heard Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2) The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2004 passed by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 13/2001 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rupees three thousand and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three years. The appellant and other co-accused Tulshiram were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The other co-accused Pralhad died before commencement of the criminal trial. 3) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows: The appellant, other co-accused and complainant Rajkumar were residents of village Virli (Khurd). Since 1999, complainant Rajkumar and his family members were having dispute with the accused on account of right of way and were not on talking terms. On 5.11.2000, at about 8 p.m., complainant Rajkumar was in his house. Deceased Sahadeo (father of the complainant) and maternal grand-mother Nimbabai were also present in the house of the complainant at the relevant time on the day of incident. The appellant and other co-accused loaded a bullockcart with paddy bags and at the relevant time, were taking the said bullock-cart by the road, which was in front of the house of the complainant. The said bullock-cart gave a dash to the wooden roof of the house of complainant Rajkumar, with the result, the said roof collapsed. Complainant Rajkumar told the accused that if they would have taken proper care, the bullock-cart would not have dashed against the roof of his house. Accused Pralhad (now deceased) got annoyed and told the complainant that he had committed encroachment upon the road, therefore, even if they had taken proper care, they could not have avoided the dash. Co-accused Pralhad abused the complainant and also assaulted him by stick on his fore-head. Complainant Rajkumar sustained bleeding injury. The appellant brought an axe from his house and assaulted Sahadeo (father of complainant Rajkumar) on his head by means of the said axe. Sahadeo sustained bleeding injuries and fell down on the ground. Nimbabai (maternal grand-mother of the complainant) came to his rescue. Complainant Rajkumar sustained bleeding injury. The appellant brought an axe from his house and assaulted Sahadeo (father of complainant Rajkumar) on his head by means of the said axe. Sahadeo sustained bleeding injuries and fell down on the ground. Nimbabai (maternal grand-mother of the complainant) came to his rescue. However, accused Pralhad assaulted her by stick and the appellant also assaulted her by the axe on her right hand, right leg and below the waist. It is the case of the prosecution that co-accused Tulshiram also assaulted her by wooden stick. Nimbabai sustained bleeding injuries. 4) Complainant Rajkumar took his father Sahadeo and maternal grand-mother Nimbabai to the house of Police Patil and from there, to the Police Station, Lakhandur in a tractor. Rajkumar lodged report with the Police on the same day, i.e. on 5.11.2000. Sahadeo and Nimbabai were taken to the Doctor for medical examination. Police came on the spot, prepared spot panchanama and sent injured co-accused Tulshiram and Pralhad for medical examination since both of them had also sustained injuries. On 6.11.2000, the Medical Officer attached to the Rural Hospital, Lakhandur referred injured Sahadeo to the General Hospital, Bhandara for further treatment. Sahadeo was shifted to General Hospital, Bhandara on 10.11.2000. The health of Sahadeo started deteriorating and, therefore, he was referred to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. On 12.11.2000, Sahadeo succumbed to the injuries. 5) After completion of formal investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakoli. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The charge was framed and explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offence of murder. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present criminal appeal. 6) Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant, though contended that evidence of prosecution is inadequate to bring home guilt of the appellant for the offence of murder, however, has not seriously disputed the presence of appellant, deceased Sahadeo, PW 1 Rajkumar and Nimbabai (injured witness) on the spot at the relevant time as well as incident of quarrel and injuries sustained by deceased Sahadeo and other co-accused in the said incident. The learned Counsel alternatively contended that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted, same is totally inadequate to prove the charge of murder against the appellant. It was submitted that co-accused Tulshiram and Pralhad also sustained injuries and, therefore, they were referred by the Police for medical examination. It was further submitted that assault was committed on each other by both the parties, as a result, injuries were sustained by other co-accused as well as PW 1 Rajkumar, Nimbabai and Sahadeo. However, Sahadeo succumbed to head injuries sustained by him. It was contended that conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in such situation cannot be sustained in law and at the most, offence would be punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in Abani K. Debnath and another vs. State of Tripura (2005) 13 SCC 422 ). 7) Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial Court and contended that in view of testimonies of the witnesses coupled with medical evidence and other attaining circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, the prosecution succeeded in proving the charge of murder against appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. It was submitted that the appellant brought an axe from his house and gave a blow thereof on the vital part of the body of Sahadeo, i.e. head, which resulted in death of Sahadeo. It was contended that intention of the appellant was to commit murder of Sahadeo and, therefore, the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 8) We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the learned respective Counsel for the parties. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses. However, PW 1 Rajkumar (complainant), PW 7 Waktu and PW 8 Bhimabai were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the incident. PW 11 Dr. Prakash conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sahadeo and proved the report. The prosecution also examined the panch witnesses in order to prove spot panchanama, seizure of stick, clothes, inquest panchanama, etc. PW 11 Dr. Prakash conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sahadeo and proved the report. The prosecution also examined the panch witnesses in order to prove spot panchanama, seizure of stick, clothes, inquest panchanama, etc. The case of the prosecution more or less rests on the testimonies of the eye witnesses and, therefore, it will be appropriate to scrutinise the evidence of these witnesses. 9) PW 1 Rajkumar is son of deceased Sahadeo and complainant, who lodged first information report. In the examination-in-chief he has stated that he knew appellant and other co-accused since they were his neighbours. There was a dispute between him and appellant regarding the approach road and they were not on talking terms with each other. He has further deposed that on the day of incident, at about 8 p.m. he was sitting in his house. At that time, appellant along with other co-accused came with bullock-cart carrying bags of paddy and gave dash by the said bullock-cart to the wooden roof of his house, with the result the roof of the house collapsed. When this witness asked the accused why did they not take proper care, co-accused Pralhad got annoyed and gave a blow by stick on the eyebrow of right eye of this witness. This witness has further deposed that his maternal grand-mother Nimbabai came out of the house in order to rescue him. However, co-accused Tulshiram and Pralhad assaulted her by wooden stick on the wrist of her right hand and waist. At that time, Sahadeo, father of Rajkumar, was standing there. This witness has further stated that appellant brought axe from his house and gave a blow by the axe on the head of his father. His father sustained bleeding injuries and fell down on the ground. This witness had lodged oral report in the Police Station on the same day, which was reduced in writing and marked as Exh. 38. All the material particulars of the prosecution case were disclosed by this witness in his first information report. While going through the cross-examination of this witness, we have noticed that defence has not disputed that father of this witness sustained injuries on account of blow given by an axe. The defence has also not disputed the fact that roof of house of complainant collapsed due to dash given by the bullock-cart. While going through the cross-examination of this witness, we have noticed that defence has not disputed that father of this witness sustained injuries on account of blow given by an axe. The defence has also not disputed the fact that roof of house of complainant collapsed due to dash given by the bullock-cart. The defence has also not disputed that quarrel took place after the bullock-cart gave a dash to the wooden shed as well as fact of previous dispute between family members of the complainant and accused. The tenor of cross-examination of this witness shows that defence has not seriously disputed the material particulars of the prosecution case, such as existence of dispute between two families on account of approach road, on the day of incident dash was given by the bullock-cart, collapsing of roof and giving of blow by the axe on the head of Sahadeo (father of the complainant). It is pertinent to note that there are no material contradictions or omissions in the evidence of this witness. The evidence of PW 1 Rajkumar, in our view, is cogent and trustworthy and has corroborated material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed in the first information report, which was lodged almost immediately after the incident in question. Lodging of first information report without lapse of time rules out possibility of concoction and fabrication and gives authenticity to such report. 10) PW 7 Waktu is the other eye witness examined by the prosecution. This witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the day of incident, at about 8 p.m., he was present in his house and heard some noise, therefore, came out of the house and went in the direction from where noise was coming and saw that appellant was assaulting deceased Sahadeo by an axe on his forehead. This witness has also stated in the examination-in-chief that other co-accused assaulted Rajkumar and Nimbabai by wooden sticks. Perusal of the cross-examination of this witness shows that defence has not disputed the fact that appellant at the relevant time was taking his bullock-cart from the side of the house of the complainant, which was loaded with paddy bags. The said bullock-cart dashed against the roof of the house, which collapsed because of the said dash. Perusal of the cross-examination of this witness shows that defence has not disputed the fact that appellant at the relevant time was taking his bullock-cart from the side of the house of the complainant, which was loaded with paddy bags. The said bullock-cart dashed against the roof of the house, which collapsed because of the said dash. The defence has also not disputed that there was exchange of words between complainant and Sahadeo on one side and appellant and other co-accused on the other side. There are no material omissions or contradictions in the evidence of this witness. The testimony of this witness, in our view, corroborates the material particulars of the prosecution case as disclosed by PW 1 Rajkumar. 11) PW 8 Bhimabai is another eye witness examined by the prosecution. The evidence of this witness also completely corroborates the material particulars of the prosecution case relating to the assault committed by the appellant on deceased Sahadeo by means of an axe. The evidence of this witness does not suffer from any material contradiction or omission and also corroborates the testimonies of PW 1 Rajkumar and PW 7 Waktu. 12) PW 11 Dr. Prakash Mohite conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Sahadeo and found the following injuries: (1) Stitch wound present over frontal region left side 2 cm. above eye brow vertical 2” x 0.5” x bone deep margins edematous irregular with black scab. On internal examination, the Doctor found the injuries as under: (1) Under scalp haematoma present over left frontal region 4 cm. x 3 cm. brownish black in colour. (2) Circular depressed fracture present over left frontal bone ½ inch in diameter. (3) Extradural haematoma present over left frontal region 2 cm.x 1 cm.x 1 cm. meninges intact. (4) Subdural haemorrage present in left front paratial region 6 cm. x 4 cm. brownish in colour.” The Doctor opined that cause of death was the head injury. In the cross-examination, the Doctor has ruled out the possibility of sustaining injuries mentioned in column no. 19 of the post mortem report on account of fall. The medical evidence, in our view, completely corroborates the testimonies of eye witnesses. 13) After taking into consideration the evidence of eye witnesses, medical evidence coupled with other evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that appellant was the author of the injuries sustained by deceased Sahadeo. 19 of the post mortem report on account of fall. The medical evidence, in our view, completely corroborates the testimonies of eye witnesses. 13) After taking into consideration the evidence of eye witnesses, medical evidence coupled with other evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that appellant was the author of the injuries sustained by deceased Sahadeo. However, in order to appreciate whether the offence committed by the appellant is punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code or not, it is necessary to consider the following relevant factors. 14) It is no doubt true that there was exchange of hot words between accused persons and members of the complainant’s party. It is not in dispute that during the course of assault, some members of both parties sustained injuries. It is also not in dispute that appellant brought the axe from his house and gave a blow by the said axe on the head of deceased Sahadeo. Though external injury sustained by deceased Sahadeo over the frontal region was only one, however, the force with which the blow was given can be seen from the corresponding internal injuries sustained by deceased Sahadeo, which are mentioned in the post mortem report. The internal injuries sustained by deceased were haematoma under scalp over the left frontal region 4 cm. x 3 cm., circular depressed fracture over left frontal bone, extra-dural haematoma over left frontal region 2 cm. x 1 cm. and sub-dural haemorrhage in the left front paratial region 6 cm. x 4 cm. The weapon used by the appellant is axe, which was brought by the appellant from his house. The blow was given by the appellant with the axe on the head of the deceased with such a great force that Sahadeo sustained four internal injuries including fracture of skull. 15) This is not the case where appellant picked up the axe from the spot of incident and inflicted injury on the person of deceased Sahadeo at the spur of moment in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel. 15) This is not the case where appellant picked up the axe from the spot of incident and inflicted injury on the person of deceased Sahadeo at the spur of moment in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel. In the instant case, the appellant went home and brought the deadly weapon, i.e. axe with him and placement of injury and the force used by the appellant while inflicting the injury clearly demonstrate that appellant intended to kill Sahadeo and injuries were inflicted with the intention of causing death, therefore, in our considered view, the offence committed by the appellant is murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 16) The decision in the case of Abani K. Debnath and another (cited supra) is rendered by the Apex Court in entirely different facts. In the said case, the prosecution evidence clearly disclosed that dao-blow dealt by the accused no.1 was preceded by a mutual quarrel. There was only one blow given by accused no.1 on the spur of moment and the deceased succumbed to the injury caused by the said blow. Since the blow was given by the accused no.1 on the spur of moment, the Apex Court modified the conviction of accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to one under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. However, in the instant case, appellant had brought the deadly weapon, i.e. axe from his house and gave the blow with full force on the head of deceased Sahadeo. The internal injuries sustained by deceased Sahadeo clearly show that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury, which he knew would result in causing death of Sahadeo and, therefore, the offence committed by the appellant is murder and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abani K. Debnath and another (cited supra), in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is of no help to the appellant. 17) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the criminal appeal suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed.