JUDGMENT 1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In the event of failure to pay which he was required to undergo one year further rigorous imprisonment by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions trial 189/98 dated 27-01-2000. Merg statement (Ex.-P/1) of Sonsai (PW-1) was recorded on 28-9-1998 stating that the same day between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. he was sitting along with the appellant, deceased Bansiram, Darbar Singh (PW-2) and Sadhram (PW-4) when the appellant assaulted the deceased with a "Tangi" and fled away leaving the "Tangi" behind. F.I.R. was registered the same day, marked Ex.-P/2, lodged by PW-1 at 23.45 hours. The postmortem report of the deceased was conducted by Doctor Anil Kumar (PW-9) marked as Ex.-P/10 who found following injuries on person of the deceased:-- (i) Incised wound 2.5 c.ms. x 1 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. on right submandibular region lying obliquely just below mandible 3 c.ms. behind chin. Clotted blood present in and around the wound, wound elliptical in shape, (ii) incised wound 5 c.ms. x 2.5 c.ms. x 3 c.ms. lying obliquely on right lateral aspect of neck, elliptical in shape, 5 c.ms. below right ear. Right carotid artery, jugular veins and vertebra cut. Clotted blood present in and around the wound, (iii) incised wound 9 c.ms. x 2 c.ms. 3 c.ms., elliptical in shape lying transversely on nape of neck, right half, 12 c.ms. below right ear. Clotted blood present in and around the wound, (iv) incised wound 6 c.ms. x 2 c.ms. x 4 c.ms., elliptical in shape lying transversely on right scapular region starting from midline 5 c.ms. below the cervical vertebra. Clotted blood present in and around the wound. All the injuries were opined to be caused by sharp edged object. The "Tangi" seized from the spot was marked as Ex.-P/7 and the clothes of the appellant seized from his person were marked as Ex.-P/3. The FSL report marked Ex.-P/17 has confirmed the presence of blood both on the "Tangi" and the clothes of the appellant. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. specific question was put to the appellant both with regard to the seizure of the "Tangi" from the spot and the presence of blood on his clothes for which he offered no explanation except to simply deny the allegations. 2. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. specific question was put to the appellant both with regard to the seizure of the "Tangi" from the spot and the presence of blood on his clothes for which he offered no explanation except to simply deny the allegations. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses make it apparent that both the appellant and the deceased lived opposite and were known to each other. They had consumed liquor together. It was therefore not an assault committed with a premeditated mind and designed to kill but an act done in a state of intoxication. The appellant therefore was not fully in his senses to understand and appreciate the consequences of his acts. It was next submitted that he had no previous enmity and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself reveals that the appellant acted on a sudden provocation following a verbal duel on the spot. It was lastly submitted that while PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 have talked of 3 injuries, the doctor has found 4 injuries on the deceased which is suggestive of the fact that the sequence of events and assault may have been different than what is alleged by the prosecution. The FSL report with regard to blood on his clothes cannot be conclusive in absence of a serologist report with regard to blood group of the deceased. The appellant therefore deserves to be given benefit of doubt. In the alternative it was submitted that as the assault was on grave and sudden provocation on the spur of the moment preceded by verbal duel, the conviction may be altered to be one under Section 304 Part II IPC. 3. Counsel for the state opposed the appeal submitting that the three eye-witnesses, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 are consistent and nothing has emerged even in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence. The appellant has not been able to explain the blood marks on his clothes confirmed in the FSL. The "Tangi" left behind by him after the assault was seized by police and blood on the same also confirmed in the FSL report. 4. We have considered the submissions and perused the evidence on record. The appellant and the deceased were sitting in the court yard of PW-1. Both of them had consumed liquor. PW-1 states that the appellant threatened to assault the deceased and then assaulted him. 4. We have considered the submissions and perused the evidence on record. The appellant and the deceased were sitting in the court yard of PW-1. Both of them had consumed liquor. PW-1 states that the appellant threatened to assault the deceased and then assaulted him. He also states that PW-4 and PW-2 were present at the time of assault. The appellant left the "Tangi" at the place of assault and went away. He confirmed having made the merge statement and lodged the FIR. PW-2 likewise reiterated that he came to the house of PW-1 where the appellant, the deceased and PW-4 were sitting. The appellant made caustic comments with regard to a woman against the deceased. The deceased retaliated that the appellant had killed his wife while she was pregnant and if he had taken her to the hospital she may have survived. The appellant got agitated and assaulted the deceased with the "Tangi" on the neck and went away leaving the "Tangi" behind. The witness further states that the appellant assaulted the deceased thrice. He confirmed his signature on Ex.-P/3, the clothes of the appellant seized by police. 5. Aatmaram (PW-3) proved the inquest report (Ex.-P/5) and Ex.-P/7 the seizure of the "Tangi" along with Ex.-P/3 clothes of the deceased. PW-4 reiterated the deposition made by PW-1 and PW-2 that he was present at the house of PW-1 along with the appellant, the deceased and PW-2 when the appellant assaulted the deceased, left the "Tangi" behind and went away. Ramdhar (PW-5) proved the seizure of the "Tangi" from the spot by Ex.-P/7. Doctor Anil Kumar (PW-9) proved the postmortem report confirming that the injuries could have been caused by the "Tangi". Aanantram Sahu (PW-12), Investigating Officer, proved recording of the merge and the FIR, seizure of the "Tangi" and clothes of the appellant. 6. We find it difficult to accept the defence that the appellant committed the assault in a state of drunkenness unaware of the consequences of the same. Drunkenness cannot be equated with insanity and it cannot be said that the appellant was not in his senses so as to appreciate the nature and consequences of his act. He assaulted the deceased not once but four times proved by the postmortem report and then aware of what he had done went away from the place of occurrence. Drunkenness cannot be equated with insanity and it cannot be said that the appellant was not in his senses so as to appreciate the nature and consequences of his act. He assaulted the deceased not once but four times proved by the postmortem report and then aware of what he had done went away from the place of occurrence. Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:-- "In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will." The defence of drunkenness in view of the aforesaid provision was considered in Basdev Vs. State of Pepsu 1956 SCR 363 observing as follows:-- "14. The result of the authorities is summarised neatly and compendiously at p. 63 of Russet on Crime, 10th Edn., in the following words: "There is a distinction, however, between the defence of insanity in the true sense caused by excessive drunkenness and the defence of drunkenness which produces a condition such that the drunken man's mind becomes incapable of forming a specific intention. If actual insanity in fact supervenes as the result of alcoholic excess it furnishes as complete an answer to a criminal charge as insanity induced by any other cause. But in cases falling short of insanity evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intent, but evidence of drunkenness which falls short of proving such incapacity and merely establishes that the mind of the accused was so affected by drink that he more readily gave way to some violent passion does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his act." Quite clearly that defence is not available to the appellant on the facts of the case according to the evidence available in that regard. 7. 7. The submission that he acted on a grave and sudden provocation does not impress us in view of the fact that it was not a single assault made on the spur of the moment but four repeated assaults one after the other. It cannot be said that Exception 4 to Section 300 applies and the appellant had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. We therefore find it difficult to accept the submission that conviction should be altered into one under Section 304 Part II. The fact that the witnesses stated three assaults while the Doctor found four injuries also does not impress us. The fact of the matter is that witnesses have talked about neck area confirmed in the postmortem report. We are not inclined to make an artistic distinction with regard to the number of assaults made when place of occurrence, identity of the assailant and the deceased find credible support from three eye-witnesses whose testimony we find unimpeachable. 8. In the facts of the case and the FSL report confirming blood on clothes of the appellant, the absence of the serologist report cannot be of any advantage to the appellant so as to doubt the entire prosecution story. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the conviction under appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed