JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. The present appeal arise out of the judgment and order dated 28.7.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No.124 of 1992, whereby the appellant-accused was ordered to be convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, RI for one month. 2. The incident occurred at a small village Getmuvada of Taluka Halol, District Panchmahals. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.2.1992 at about 18 hours while deceased Shanabhai Malubhai Rathava and Revjibhai Punabhai were passing through the house of the appellant-accused, the appellant-accused as well as original accused No.2 Ramanbhai Nevlabhai Rathava were standing near the house of the appellant accused, the appellant-accused assaulted deceased Shanabhai and inflicted blow on head of the deceased with a stick. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai immediately informed PW-7 Baliben about the incident. It is further the case of the prosecution that all of them contacted PW-4 Nurubhai Ahmedbhai, who was police patel. It is further the case of the prosecution that as deceased Shanabhai was severely injured and was bleeding, they first took deceased Shanabhai in a rickshaw to police station and thereafter to Government Referral Hospital at Halol. It is the case of the prosecution that the Medical Officer-in-charge of the Referral Hospital at Halol, on examination of Shanabhai, who was unconscious, opined that he should be shifted to Vadodara SSG Hospital for further treatment. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai, PW-7 Baliben Revjibhai, PW-4 Nurubhai Ahmedbhai as well as PW-10 Ratnabhai Shanabhai took Shanabhai in a taxi to Vadodara. Ultimately, Shanabhai succumbed to the injuries on 29.2.1992. 3. The first information was registered against the appellant and other two accused. The police investigated the offence and after recording the statement of various witnesses, filed charge-sheet against the present appellant-accused as well as Ramanbhai Nevlabhai for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the Court of learned JMFC, Halol. As the said offences were exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhra and the same came to be registered as Sessions Case No.124 of 1992. As the said offences were exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhra and the same came to be registered as Sessions Case No.124 of 1992. 3.1 Charge was framed at Exh.2. The same was read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, after recording of evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against appellant-accused No.1 and, with the judgment impugned, was pleased to pass the order of conviction of appellant-accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, RI for one month. By that very judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded acquittal in respect of original accused No.2- Ramanbhai Nevlabhai Rathava. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 5. We have heard Ms Sadhana Sagar for the appellant and learned APP Mr. Divyesh Sejpal for the State. 6. Ms Sagar has taken us through the oral testimony of PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai, who is the eye-witness, PW-7 Baliben Revjibhai as well as PW-10 Ratnabhai Shanabhai. Ms Sagar submitted that the oral testimony of PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai, as an eyewitness, is not reliable. Ms Sagar further pointed out that PW-2 Revjibhai and deceased Shanabhai were drunk and, therefore, she submitted that PW-2 Revjibhai was not in his senses and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the oral testimony of such a witness. Ms Sagar further pointed out that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive. Ms Sagar further pointed out that there was no intention on the part of the appellant-accused to kill, taking into consideration, the conduct of the appellant accused after the incident, that is to say, that he accompanied PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai, PW-7 Baliben Revjibhai, and PW-10 Ratnabhai Shanabhai to the house of police patel PW-4 Nurubhai Ahmedbhai and also accompanied them to Referral Hospital at Halol. She, therefore, submitted that PW-2 Revjibhai, in particular, has wrongly involved the appellant-accused. She, therefore, submitted that PW-2 Revjibhai, in particular, has wrongly involved the appellant-accused. Ms Sagar also pointed out that the incident has not occurred on the public road, but has occurred in the field of the appellant-accused and even though other independent witnesses were available, the prosecution has not examined any such independent witness. She further pointed out that PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai, PW-7 Baliben Revjibhai, and PW-10 Ratnabhai Shanabhai are interested witnesses and, therefore, no reliance can be put on oral testimony of such interested witnesses. She further pointed out that even when deceased Shanabhai was taken to the Referral Hospital at Halol, no names are given to the Doctor and only history of attack with stick is given. She, therefore, pointed out that only in order to take revenge of an earlier dispute relating to discontinuance of agricultural operation in the field of the relative of the appellant-accused, PW-2 Revjibhai has wrongly given the name of the appellant-accused. As such, there was some quarrel between PW-2 and the deceased and that an attempt is also made by Ms Sagar that in fact PW-2 Revjibhai had assaulted deceased Shanabhai. 6.1 In the alternative, Ms Sagar submitted that even if the evidence led by the prosecution is believed by this Court, there was no intention on the part of the appellant-accused to commit murder of deceased Shanabhai. As indicative from the injuries, only one blow was given and, therefore, the case of the appellant would fall within the Fourth Exception to Section 300 of IPC. The offence, therefore, would not be an offence of murder punishable under Section 302, but it would be an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as envisaged under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 7. Learned APP Mr Sejpal for the State has opposed this appeal. Mr Sejpal pointed out that PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai was present when the incident had taken place and had seen the occurrence of crime. Mr Sejpal stated that even though it is a case of single blow, the force with which the blow is given by the appellant-accused, has resulted into grievous injuries of fractures on the vital part of the body. Mr Sejpal submitted that the blow was given in such a manner that deceased Shanabhai became unconscious and was profusely bleeding. Mr Sejpal stated that even though it is a case of single blow, the force with which the blow is given by the appellant-accused, has resulted into grievous injuries of fractures on the vital part of the body. Mr Sejpal submitted that the blow was given in such a manner that deceased Shanabhai became unconscious and was profusely bleeding. 7.1 Mr Sejpal further pointed out that, in fact, immediately before the assault, there was some altercation between the appellant-accused and the deceased on the same day. Mr Sejpal pointed out that it has clearly come in evidence that there was a dispute of right of way in regard to the fields of the appellant-accused and the deceased, which are situated in the same village and have a common boundary. Mr Sejpal also pointed out that even though it has come on evidence that PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai as well as the deceased were drunk, the subsequent conduct of PW-2 shows that he was equally alert and was in his proper senses. Mr Sejpal pointed out that, on the contrary, the conduct of PW-2 indicates that he did everything to save life of deceased Shanabhai. Mr Sejpal has taken us through the medical evidence on record and has pointed out that the first Doctor PW-1 Dr. Preeti Kesarsingh Jadav, who examined the deceased at Government Referral Hospital at Halol, first in point of time after the incident, has clearly opined that the injury upon the person of deceased Shanabhai is possible by the weapon stick. Mr Sejpal, therefore, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly believed the case of the prosecution and that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused. Mr Sejpal also pointed out that even the alternative argument made on behalf of the appellant-accused is solely based on the fact that it is the case of single blow. However, from the nature of injuries and the force with which such an injury is caused upon the person of deceased Shanabhai, it would not be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Mr Sejpal, therefore, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant-accused for the offence of murder. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have examined the record and proceedings in context of rival contentions. 9. Mr Sejpal, therefore, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant-accused for the offence of murder. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have examined the record and proceedings in context of rival contentions. 9. Upon reading of evidence of eye-witness PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai (Exh.13), we find that there was some dispute as regards the boundary of the agricultural land of the appellant-accused as well as land of deceased Shanabhai, which have a common boundary. We also find that on the date of incident, while PW-2 and the deceased were coming towards their house, the appellant-accused intercepted them and, thereafter, when the deceased and PW-2 Revjibhai reached near the house of the appellant-accused, the deceased was assaulted by the appellant-accused with a stick and has given a blow on the vital part of the body i.e. head. Upon reading of evidence of PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai, we further find that he has taken utmost care to see that life of the deceased, who was injured, is saved. We find that he immediately contacted Baliben, his daughter, as well PW-10 Ratnabhai Shanabhai son of the deceased. We also find that he immediately contacted PW-4 Nurubhai Ahmedbhai, who was police patel of the village. On appreciating the oral testimony of PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai, who is an eye-witness, we find that even though in his cross-examination, he has stated that both he and deceased were drunk, from the behaviour of this witness, we find that he was equally alert and in his full senses, and as stated aforesaid, acted naturally. We, therefore, find a ring of truth in the oral testimony of PW-2 Revjibhai Punabhai, who has seen the occurrence of crime as he was with deceased Shanabhai. 10. Upon reading of evidence of PW-7 Baliben Revjibhai (Exh.24) and PW-10 Ratnabhai Shanabhai (Exh.28), we find that they have supported the case of the prosecution. Even in their cross-examinations, they have sticked to their version in chief supporting the case of the prosecution. 10.1 Even though these three witnesses are relatives of the deceased and are alleged to be interested witnesses, on close scrutiny of their oral testimonies, we find that their version is trustworthy and their version is amply corroborated with the medical evidence. 11. 10.1 Even though these three witnesses are relatives of the deceased and are alleged to be interested witnesses, on close scrutiny of their oral testimonies, we find that their version is trustworthy and their version is amply corroborated with the medical evidence. 11. Upon reading the evidence of PW-1 Dr Preeti Keharsingh Jadav (Exh.9), we find that deceased Shanabhai was brought to the Government Referral Hospital, where she was on duty as a Medical Officer, in an unconscious manner and she has clearly stated that on examination of deceased Shanabhai, a lacerated wound was found on the forehead and she had also noticed fracture. We also find that this witness has opined that such an injury would be possible with the weapon in question, the stick. 12. Upon reading the evidence of PW-3 Dr Kishore Pramodray (Exh.14), who performed the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Shanabhai, it is clear that the injuries upon the forehead of deceased Shanabhai were of such a grave nature that the same has resulted into damage of the brain and there was fracture. We also find that this witness has clearly opined that the injury upon the person of the deceased was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. 13. The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution and, the type of injury, which is caused by the appellant with a stick, was sufficient enough to cause death of deceased Shanabhai and, more particularly, it is evident that the intention on the part of the appellant was to cause death of victim in the ordinary course. 14. As regards the alternative argument made by Ms Sagar appearing on behalf of the appellant, it is worthwhile to note that the nature of weapon used, which is not a simple stick, but stick covered with iron rings and iron cover upon it, was sufficient enough to cause death of deceased Shanabhai. It is not a universal rule that in every case of one blow, the Court should always consider it to be a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The place of incident, nature of weapon and the force of blow are relevant factors. From the evidence on record, the prosecution has also been able to prove the motive. The prosecution has also been able to establish the guilt of the appellant. The place of incident, nature of weapon and the force of blow are relevant factors. From the evidence on record, the prosecution has also been able to prove the motive. The prosecution has also been able to establish the guilt of the appellant. The place of incident and the force with which the blow was given establish the fact that the appellant had an intention to inflict injury knowing that the same would result into death in ordinary course and, therefore, the present case does not fall within the Fourth Exception to Section 300 of IPC. The appellant has not been able to show from the evidence on record that the present case falls within the scope and ambit of Fourth Exception to Section 300 of IPC and the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the present appellant-accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him for life imprisonment. 15. It has clearly come on record that there was an existing dispute of boundaries of agricultural fields of deceased and the appellant, which were adjoining. It has also come on record that immediately before the occurrence, there was some altercation between the appellant-accused and the deceased. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to successfully establish the motive. Cumulatively, therefore, it would lead to only one conclusion that the appellant had intention to commit murder of the deceased and he had full knowledge that the injuries caused on vital part of the deceased would cause death in the ordinary course of nature and, therefore, the present case would not fall within the Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC and would not amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 16. We, therefore, hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appeal is devoid of any merits. No interference is called for in exercise of our appellate powers. 17. In the result, the appeal must fail and stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.7.1993 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals, Godhra in Sessions case No.124 of 1992 is hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed.