JUDGMENT : T.K. Kaushal, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28-12-2001 passed in S.T. No. 136/2000 by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Pappu (deceased) aged 1-1/2 years by axe blows and sentencing him with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default with one month Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. Facts in short, are that on 5-5-2000 at about 5 p.m. Daulat Singh (P.W. 1) R/o Village Bhimpur reached in adjoining Village Shankargarh, at residence of Babulal (P.W. 1) for taking medicine for his ailing son. While he was waiting for him in his house, appellant having armed with Farsa along with three acquitted co-accused persons came, abused and assaulted Daulat Singh. Chasing Daulat (P.W. 1), appellant reached inside the room and hit him but it hit at wall and farsa got broken. 3. Hearing uproar, Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) along with Pappu (since deceased) in her lap reached there. By the time appellant could pick up axe lying there, Daulat (P.W. 1) ran out of the house. On seeing Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) there, the acquitted co-accused persons told appellant to hit her. Appellant dealt with an axe blow on Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) but in place of Shakun Bai it hit on the neck of Pappu. Appellant dealt another blow which hit on his head. Pappu died an instantaneous death. Daulat Singh (P.W. 1), Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) and Lalchand (P.W. 3), son of Shakun Bai also sustained injuries in the incident. Leaving Pappu on the spot, they ran away. 4. Next day, i.e., on 6-5-2000 at about 12.05 p.m., Daulat (P.W.1) lodged First Information Report (Exh. P-1). at Police Station, Sultanpur. A case was registered at Crime No. 53/2000 under Sections 302/34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant and three others. After inquest proceeding, Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9) conducted post mortem of Pappu. Post mortem report is Exh. P-10. Doctor opined the cause of death shock and haemorrhage due to homicidal ante-mortem head injuries caused within 24 hours of the examination by sharp edged weapon. During investigation, on 15-5-2000, vide Exh. P-17 appellant was arrested. At his instance, vide Exh. P-8, blood stained Axe was seized. Post mortem report is Exh. P-10. Doctor opined the cause of death shock and haemorrhage due to homicidal ante-mortem head injuries caused within 24 hours of the examination by sharp edged weapon. During investigation, on 15-5-2000, vide Exh. P-17 appellant was arrested. At his instance, vide Exh. P-8, blood stained Axe was seized. Completing the investigation, Police Sultanpur citing 14 witnesses, submitted charge-sheet against appellant and three other co-accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302, 323 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code of appellant and under Section 302/34, 323 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against remaining accused persons. Appellant and other accused persons abjured guilt. Statements of Daulat Singh (P.W. 1), Shakun Bai (P.W. 2), mother of the deceased, Lalchand (P.W. 3) son of Shakun Bai, Jagdish Prasad (P.W. 4), Ramcharan (P.W. 5) father of deceased, Kadori (P.W. 6), Babulal (P.W. 7) in whose house incident took place, Kamal Singh (P.W. 8), Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9), Kuwar Singh (P.W. 10), Patwari, L.D. Mishra (P.W. 11), ASI and Rajesh Kumar Jha (P.W. 12) Investigating Officer were recorded. 6. Defence of the accused persons in Trial Court was that of false implication. According to defence, Shakun Bai (P.W. 2 herself killed her son Pappu. Puniya Bai (D.W. 1) wife of Babulal, Halkeveer (D.W. 2), Brajesh Kumar (D.W. 3) and Bhura (D.W. 4) were examined in defence. Appreciating the evidence, learned Trial Court acquitted other co-accused persons however convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 7. Assailing the findings of the Trial Court, this appeal is preferred on the grounds that Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly. There was no blood stain on the clothes of Shakun Bai in whose lap Pappu (since deceased) sustained axe injuries and died. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State, however, has supported the findings of the Trial Court. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and material on record. 9. Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9) vide Exh. P-10, post-mortem report, found following injuries on the deceased :- (i) Incised, wound 10 inches x 4 inches x 3 inches on the right occipital region. (ii) Incised wound 5 inches x 1 inch x 1 inch on occipital region. 10. Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9) replied the query of Police vide Exh. Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9) vide Exh. P-10, post-mortem report, found following injuries on the deceased :- (i) Incised, wound 10 inches x 4 inches x 3 inches on the right occipital region. (ii) Incised wound 5 inches x 1 inch x 1 inch on occipital region. 10. Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9) replied the query of Police vide Exh. P-14 and observed that injuries are possible while the boy would be in the lap of his mother by the axe produced before him. Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9) stated that it is quite probable to be blood stains on the clothes of the person in whose lap injuries of two axe blows are caused to deceased. Injuries may be caused by axe blows, dealt while the boy was lying on the floor. Either way death of Pappu is proved to be homicidal. 11. Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) stated that on hearing the cries she and her son Lalchand (P.W. 3) rushed to the house of Babulal (P.W. 6). Appellant dealt a blow with axe on her but it hit the neck of Pappu (since deceased) and he also dealt another blow which hit on his head. Leaving behind Pappu (since deceased) there, she, Daulat Singh (P.W. 1) and Lalchand (P.W. 3) ran away. 12. Daulat Singh (P.W. 1) stated that next morning he reached at Police Station and lodged First Information Report (Exh. P-l). In Para 9 of his statement, he stated that axe used in the incident by the appellant was not brought by him. It was already lying in the room. Lalchand (P.W. 3) stated in Para 3 that appellant dealt blow on her mother but as mother turned so it hit Pappu. Kusum Bai (P.W. 2) stated that there had been blood stains on her sari. Police saw that sari. That sari was seized by Police after about two months. 13. Daulat Singh (P.W. 1), Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) and Lalchand (P.W. 3) are reliable witnesses. They sustained injuries in the incident. They are corroborating each other. Their presence on the spot is natural. Statement of Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) is corroborated by medical evidence, i.e., statement of Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9), post mortem report (Exh. P-10) and query report (Exh. P-14). 14. They sustained injuries in the incident. They are corroborating each other. Their presence on the spot is natural. Statement of Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) is corroborated by medical evidence, i.e., statement of Dr. Vijay Saxena (P.W. 9), post mortem report (Exh. P-10) and query report (Exh. P-14). 14. On the other hand, supporting the defence of the appellant, Puniya Bai (D.W. 1) stated that altercation started between appellant and Daulat (P.W. 1). Shakun (P.W. 2) reached there having and axe in her hand and Pappu (since deceased) in her lap. On the suggestion given by Daulat (P.W. 1), as stated by Puniya Bai (D.W. 1), Shakun Bai dealt with two blows on head of her own son and killed him. Halkeveer (D.W. 2), Brajesh (D.W. 3) and Bhura (D.W. 4) also stated the same version. Rajesh Kumar Jha (P.W. 12) Investigating Officer stated in Para 2 that two wives of Babulal (P.W. 6) told him that Shakun Bai killed her own son but after investigation this story was found false. Rajesh Kumar (P.W. 12) Investigating Officer prepared site plan (Exh. P-2), conducted inquest proceeding in which place of incident has been shown in the house of Babulal (P.W. 7). If they saw Shakun Bai killing her own son in the house of Babulal (P.W. 7), they should lodged police report immediately. The defence version therefore, seems unnatural, and after thought and unacceptable. 15. Learned Counsel for the defence has argued that there was no intention of appellant to kill Pappu. It is just accidental injury. 16. In such case actus reus of criminal act is not causing death to particular victim, but the human being. So victim either might be Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) or her son Pappu (since deceased), culpability in both the cases would be same. Intention, which, the appellant had in regard to Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) and not with reference to his intention to Pappu (since deceased), the person actually killed. Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code enacted the principle that a man shall be punished for offence committed in same manner, as he intended that. It reads as below :- "301. Intention, which, the appellant had in regard to Shakun Bai (P.W. 2) and not with reference to his intention to Pappu (since deceased), the person actually killed. Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code enacted the principle that a man shall be punished for offence committed in same manner, as he intended that. It reads as below :- "301. If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause." 17. Causing two successive blows of axe on head of Pappu (since deceased) would leave no doubt about intention of the appellant. It is simply nothing but the murder. Keeping in view, theory of transfer of Malice, in our opinion, it becomes immaterial that appellant initially wanted to kill his mother Kusum Bai or anybody else. We see no error in appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court in arriving at conclusion of the guilt of appellant. Defence of the appellant seems to us improbable and after thought. 18. In our opinion, the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced. We see no force in appeal, it is hereby dismissed.