Judgment Bankim N. Mehta, J.—The appellants have preferred this appeal and challenged the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara, on 26.8.2005 in Sessions Case No. 288 of 2004 convicting them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The appellants-accused with seven other persons were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 323, 337, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 24.7.2004 at about 10.30 in the morning when Mumtazben, mother of the first informant, was making hedge, Leelaben - wife of Ratilal, asked as to why she was making hedge and thereafter accused Fulabhai came there and gave abuses to Mumtazben. Accused Ratilal came with stick and gave stick blow on the head of Mumtazben. On account of assault, Mumtazben fell down and accused Bhavsingh also hit stick blow on the head of Mumtazben. The other accused also came there and hurled abuses and started pelting stones on Mumtazben. Javedbhai, maternal uncle of the first informant also came running there. He tried to intervene when accused also gave him a kick blow. On account of injuries, Mumtazben fell unconscious. She was taken to hospital and ultimately, she succumbed to the injuries. 4. On the basis of first information report lodged by Nargis, daughter of Mohmadbhai Raisinghbhai at Vagodia Police Station, offence was registered and investigation was started. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Panchnama of scene of offence and panchnama of recovery of weapons were drawn. As Mumtazben died during treatment, postmortem of her dead body was performed. At the end of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vagodia, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No. 288 of 2004 came to be registered. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara, framed charge at Exh. 3 against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara, framed charge at Exh. 3 against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused were explained to them. Accused in their further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied having committed the offence and stated that false case was filed against them. After hearing learned advocate for the accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, trial Court by the aforesaid judgement and order convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated above but acquitted the other accused. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellants accused have preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Rakesh Sharma for the appellants and learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya for the State at length and in great detail. We have also perused the impugned judgement of the trial Court. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Sharma for the appellants has submitted that on account of grave and sudden provocation the incident ensued and there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause death. Therefore, learned trial Judge committed error in convicting the appellants for the offence of murder. He has further submitted that the medical evidence indicates that only four injuries were found on the dead body and such injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death. Therefore, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence of murder. He has again submitted that the eye witnesses’ evidences indicate that on account of quarrel between the deceased and the accused with regard to making of hedge, the incident occurred and on account of grave and sudden provocation, injuries were caused to the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be held that the appellants had an intention to cause death of the victim. He has submitted that there is discrepancy in the evidence of eye-witness Nargis and therefore learned trial Judge committed error in relying on her testimony and therefore the appeal is required to be allowed. 8. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Therefore, it cannot be held that the appellants had an intention to cause death of the victim. He has submitted that there is discrepancy in the evidence of eye-witness Nargis and therefore learned trial Judge committed error in relying on her testimony and therefore the appeal is required to be allowed. 8. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya has submitted that the evidence does not indicate that there was grave and sudden provocation and that on account of quarrel the incident occurred. He has also submitted that the injuries found on the dead body were caused on vital part of the body without any provocation. He has also submitted that the eye-witness has given true account of the incident and the discrepancy alleged by the appellants did not go to the root of the case. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgement of the trial Court and the appeal is required to be dismissed. 9. As regards death of the deceased, prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Kishorbhai Pramodrai Desai at Exh. 16. According to this witness, external injuries found on the dead body were recorded in column No. 17 of the postmortem note and such injuries were possible by stick or stones. He has also deposed that cause of death was injuries on head and brain. Postmortem report at Exh. 17 indicates external injuries and the cause of death. It appears from the medical evidence that the death was homicidal in nature. It is not the defence that the death was either suicidal or accidental. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in recording the finding that the death was homicidal. 10. Prosecution has examined eye-witness PW-2 Nargis Mohmmadbhai at Exh. 22. She has deposed that deceased Mumtazben was her mother and was making hedge. At that time accused Ratilal gave a stick blow on her mother’s head and therefore her mother fell down. Thereafter, accused Bhavsingh also hit a stick blow on her head. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the accused. However, despite lengthy cross-examination, defence has not been able to elicit that the witness was not present at the time of incident or her presence was not probable. Therefore, it clearly emerges from the evidence of this witness that she was present at the time of incident and had seen that the appellants accused gave stick blow on the head of the deceased causing her fatal injuries. Therefore, it clearly emerges from the evidence of this witness that she was present at the time of incident and had seen that the appellants accused gave stick blow on the head of the deceased causing her fatal injuries. Therefore, the appellants were responsible for causing fatal injuries to the deceased. 11. PW-2 Nargis also lodged first information report at Exh. 23. It is alleged in it that the appellants accused hit stick blows on the head of the deceased. As observed earlier, PW-2 has duly supported the accusation made in the FIR. There is nothing on record to indicate that a quarrel preceded the incident. Even the cross-examination of the eye-witness does not indicate that prior to the incident, there was provocation from the deceased and it ensued in the unfortunate incident. Therefore, the submission of learned advocate for the appellants accused that on account of grave and sudden provocation the incident occurred, cannot be accepted. 12. The prosecution has also examined Investigating Officer PW-15 Muljibhai Jivabhai Rathod at Exh. 52 with regard to the improvement made by PW-9 Hanifaben. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that witness Hamidaben was an eye-witness to the incident. 13. In view of the above, it clearly emerges that the incident occurred when the deceased was making hedge and without any provocation or instigation the accused appellants attacked the deceased with stick and injuries were caused on head, a vital part of the body. 14. In view of the above, the trial Court was justified in recording that the appellants accused were responsible for causing death of deceased Mumtazben and fatal injuries were caused without any provocation from the deceased. Therefore, learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellants accused for the offence of murder of Mumtazben. Learned Advocate Mr. Sharma has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgement passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the appeal is required to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. P P P P P