Judgment Inder Singh Uboweja, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No. 87/2010 whereby and whereunder the trial Court, after holding the appellant guilty for causing homicidal death amounting to murder of Laxminbai and for voluntarily causing hurt to Ashwani Kumar, convicted the appellant under Section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life & fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, additional R.L. for two months and R.I. for one month respectively. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence against the appellant, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 2. As per case of prosecution, on fateful day of 02.04.2010 at about 12.00 noon complainant Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and his wife Laxminbai (deceased) were working together with family members at brick-kiln bZaVHkV~Bk , at that time one Dhaniram came to there with accused/appellant-Kuldeep for negotiation of marriage with daughter of Guharam Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) replied that he will discuss with his father on this matter, thereafter at about, 4.00 p.m., accused came and with the help of spade jkaik caused fatal injury to Laxminbai, as a result of which, Laxminbai succumbed to the injury on the spot. Accused has also caused injury to Ashwani Kumar. Incident was witnessed by Poonaram (PW-4) and Tankeshwar (PW-5) Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) went to police station, Janjgir and lodged Dehati Nalishi vide Ex. P-3. Dehati merg intimation was lodged vide Ex. P-2, FIR was registered vide Ex. P-12 and merg intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-13. The Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-4, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex. P-7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-5. Bloodstained soil, plain soil and broken bangles were seized from the spot vide Ex. P-10. Dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Government District Hospital, Janjgir vide Ex. P-15. Dr. A.K. Jagat (PW-9) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-17 and found following injuries and symptoms:-- "(i) Rigor mortis present over neck, upper limbs, lower limbs; eyes semi open; pupils fully dilated and fixed; nails and lips cyanosed. P-10. Dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Government District Hospital, Janjgir vide Ex. P-15. Dr. A.K. Jagat (PW-9) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-17 and found following injuries and symptoms:-- "(i) Rigor mortis present over neck, upper limbs, lower limbs; eyes semi open; pupils fully dilated and fixed; nails and lips cyanosed. (ii) Stitched wound present over left temporal region; stitch removed, it was incised wound spindle in shape 6 x 2 cm with narrow both ends, bony part partially cut reddish, placed longitudinally. A stitched wound present over left posterior auricular region, 7 x 1.5 cm with narrow ends (stitch removed) almost longitudinal with bone partially cut, regular margins of wound, spindle in shape, reddish, it was incised wound, blood came out from left ear on tilting her head. (iii) Lacerated wound over left arm 7 x 1.5 x 0.5 cm, upper part laterally irregular margins, reddish. (iv) Linear contusion of 3 x 0.5 cm over the junction of upper 1/3 & middle third of left arm laterally, spindle shape reddish. (v) Incised wound over middle part of left arm 3x1x1 cm, spindle shape, regular margins reddish with contusion of 10 x 0.3 cm. (vi) Linear contusion over lower 1/3 of left arm laterally oblique, reddish 7 x 0.3 cm. (vii) Incised wound over upper part of left scapular region, regular margins 4 x 2 x bone deep with narrow ends, oblique, one end (upper) continues with linear contusion, reddish 5 x 0.3 cm. (viii) Contusion of 5 x 2 cm, reddish, irregular over upper part of left scapular region. (ix) Contusion linear of 6 x 0.5 cm, spindle shape placed obliquely over left chest anteriorly middle & lower part. (x) 3 contusions of 4 x 0.5 cm each over left lateral part of trunk middle third region, oblique, reddish, the contusions were topped by abrasions in their middle part. (xi) Contusion of 7 x 0.5 cm over left chest anteriorly reddish, oblique, just tarsal to left breast linear." Mode of death was syncope and neurological shock due to multiple injuries over the body and death was homicidal in nature. 3. Injured Ashwani Kumar was also sent for medical examination to the Government District Hospital, Janjgir vide Ex. P-15. Dr. Ramayan Singh (PW-7) had examined him vide Ex. 3. Injured Ashwani Kumar was also sent for medical examination to the Government District Hospital, Janjgir vide Ex. P-15. Dr. Ramayan Singh (PW-7) had examined him vide Ex. P-11 and found following injuries:-- "(i) One abrasion of 2 1/2 x 1 cm over left shoulder, which was simple in nature." 4. During the course of investigation, the accused/appellant was taken into custody, he made disclosure statement of spade vide Ex. P-8, same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-9. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Janjgir. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false imputation in crime in question is claimed. Appellant examined defence witness Dhaniram Satnami (D.W.1), who deposed that the appellant is insane. 6. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment impugned and record of trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that in the light of evidence of injured witness Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and other eyewitnesses Poonaram (PW-4) and Tankeshwar (PW-5), he is not disputing the fact that appellant has caused simple injury to Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and also caused fatal injuries on vital parts of deceased - Laxminbai. He further submitted that there was no reason for the appellant to assault them, it happened because at the time of incident, appellant was mad and he was under treatment of insanity and he has done that act in insanity, therefore, he prayed that conviction of the appellant may be set aside on that alone ground. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that injured witness Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and other eyewitnesses Poonaram (PW-4) and Tankeshwar (PW-5) have clearly proved the guilt of the appellant. While appellant was causing injuries to Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and his wife Laxminbai (deceased), he was not suffering from insanity. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that injured witness Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and other eyewitnesses Poonaram (PW-4) and Tankeshwar (PW-5) have clearly proved the guilt of the appellant. While appellant was causing injuries to Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and his wife Laxminbai (deceased), he was not suffering from insanity. He had caused fatal injuries to Laxminbai resulting into her death which shows the intention of the appellant for causing homicidal death of the deceased. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. Criminal Court record shows that during the course of trial an application under Section 328 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant for treatment of the appellant as he has been suffering from insanity. Court held an enquiry and appellant was sent to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur for investigation by psychiatrist. Appellant was admitted in Mekahara Hospital, Raipur and investigated by psychologist Dr. Lokesh Kumar (C.W.1), who was examined by the trial Court. On the basis of statement of Dr. Lokesh Kumar and his examination report (Ex. A/C), Court finds that appellant is not an insane person. Therefore, argument of learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and appellant cannot take benefit of insanity ground. 12. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injuries found over the dead body of the deceased has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, even otherwise, from the evidence of Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and other eyewitnesses Poonaram (PW-4) & Tankeshwar (PW-5), Dehati merg intimation (Ex. P-2), Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-3), FIR (Ex. P-12), Merg (Ex. P-13), Dr. A.K. Jagat (PW-9) and autopsy report Ex. P-17) it is clearly established that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Simple injury caused to Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) has also not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, on the other hand, it is also established from the evidence of Ashwani Kumar (PW-2), Dr. Ramayan Singh (PW-5) and injury report (Ex. P-11). 13. As regards the complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of injured witness and husband of deceased, Ashwani Kumar (PW-2). Ramayan Singh (PW-5) and injury report (Ex. P-11). 13. As regards the complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of injured witness and husband of deceased, Ashwani Kumar (PW-2). As per his evidence, he was working at brick-kiln site along with his family members, at about 12.00 noon, one Dhaniram came to him for negotiation about marriage of the appellant with daughter of Poonaram (PW-4), whereupon, he assured Dhaniram that he will talk with Poonaram, thereafter, at about 4.00 p.m., while he was working with his wife Laxminbai and his son Tankeshwar (PW-5) at brick-kiln site, accused/appellant came there and assaulted Laxminbai by spade, resulting into, she sustained fatal injuries over vital parts of the body. He himself and his son Tankeshwar (PW-5) were while trying to save her from the appellant, then appellant/accused also assaulted him. The incident was witnessed by Poonaram (PW-4) and Kailash. Other eyewitnesses Poonaram (PW-4) and Tankeshwar (PW-5) have substantially corroborated the version of Ashwani Kumar (PW-2). These witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the defence, but has not been able to elicit anything to discredit their testimonies that the appellant has not assaulted the deceased and Ashwani Kumar (PW-2). Evidence of these witnesses clearly reveals that appellant was not having any intention to kill the deceased, but when the deceased and her son were assaulting by the appellant with spade, Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) came out probably to save his son Tankeshwar (PW-5), then the appellant had caused single blow to Ashwani Kumar (PW-2). 14. As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive losses its importance, even otherwise, motive only aids in criminality and can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, part of the body effected and other similar circumstances. Motive is a state of mind of person at the time of commission of offence and only person concerned would be in a position to explain that what was his intention or motive behind commission of any act. 15. Motive is a state of mind of person at the time of commission of offence and only person concerned would be in a position to explain that what was his intention or motive behind commission of any act. 15. In the present case, nature of injuries, kind of weapon used and part of body affected shows that act attributed to the appellant clearly reveal that he was having intention to cause homicidal death of the human being, he has caused blows repeatedly and thereby caused fatal injuries over the vital parts of body of deceased. This shows the impact and force applied by the appellant and the fact that although the appellant was having full knowledge that by his act the deceased may die. Therefore, the act attributed to the appellant squarely falls under Section 302 of the IPC. 16. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 17. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.