JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. - The present appeal has been filed against Judgment/Order dated 5.9.2009/7.9.2009 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 43-D/VII-2007, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 302 IPC, has been convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and convicted to undergo simple imprisonment, for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment, for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that accused was facing trial under Section 302 IPC. On 20.4.2006, at about 6.10 PM at Sub Jail Dharamshala, the accused inflicted injuries on the person of Anoop Kumar son of Hans Raj who died on 21.4.2006 at 1 PM in PGI Chandigarh. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. Accused examined one witness in his defence. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 304 Part I as noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General has supported that Judgment/Order of conviction dated 5.9.2009/7.9.2009. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Dr. Naresh Gupta testified that on 20.4.2006, the police had filed an application Ext. PW-1/A before him for ascertaining if Anoop Kumar was conscious and fit to make statement. He examined Anoop Kumar and found that he was unconscious and not fit to make statement. He had suffered injury in the area of head. 8. PW-2 Pankaj Sharma deposed that he was working as Jail Warder in District Jail, Dharamshala with effect from 20.8.2005. On 20.4.2006, he was on duty in the office. He usually worked with Vikram Katoch, Assistant Superintendent District Jail. He had suffered injury in the area of head. 8. PW-2 Pankaj Sharma deposed that he was working as Jail Warder in District Jail, Dharamshala with effect from 20.8.2005. On 20.4.2006, he was on duty in the office. He usually worked with Vikram Katoch, Assistant Superintendent District Jail. At about 6.10 PM, when he was working in the office and Vikram Katoch was also present there, Divesh Kumar, Head Warder had rushed to their office room and informed them that the accused and another prisoner Anoop were engaged in a fight. Accused and Anoop stood convicted under Section 302 IPC and had been serving life sentence in District Jail, Dharamshala. Sh. Anoop was locked up in Cell No.2, whereas, the accused person stood locked up in high security prison in 'B' Block in the jail complex. On receipt of information supplied by Shri Divesh Kumar, Head Warder, Vikram Katoch and he left their room after locking the room and reached the main gate of the jail. They got the gate opened and rushed to Cell No. 2. At that time, Gopal Head Warder, Pawan HHG and Naresh Warder were present in Cell No. 2 where Anoop was lying unconscious with injuries on the left side of the head. They picked him up and took to the jail gate. At that time, Jail Pharmacist had reached the jail. He examined the deceased and asked to take him to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. They arranged for a vehicle and took him to Zonal Hospital. Medical Officer at Zonal Hospital examined the deceased and referred him for expert medical treatment to PGI, Chandigarh. Police was informed and police took deceased to PGI Chandigarh on the night intervening 20.4.2006 and 21.4.2006. On 19.4.2006 also, the accused was not following jail manual and pronouncing his authority. Anoop did not accept his authority. Incident dated 19.4.2006 was reported to the jail administration and report was recorded in daily diary. Police visited District Jail on 21.4.2006 and collected documentary information relating to confinement of the accused and deceased in District Jail. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused had made allegations that he was supplying mobile phones to the inmates and under trials. He also admitted that there was a wall of 20 feet height between Cell No. 2 and high Security prison 'B' block. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused had made allegations that he was supplying mobile phones to the inmates and under trials. He also admitted that there was a wall of 20 feet height between Cell No. 2 and high Security prison 'B' block. He also admitted that deceased stood committed to 'B' block of separate cell of high security prison. 9. PW-3 Parkash Chand testified that he was working as Home Guard. He was detailed for duty in District Jail, Dharamshala during the said period. On 20.4.2006, he was working as a Warder and was in the corner of Cell No. 2 and the high security prison. He heard noise coming from Cell No. 2 at about 6.15 PM. He did not rush to Cell No. 2 to find out the cause of noise and alarm. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He admitted that on 20.4.2006 at about 6 PM, Shri Divesh Kumar, Head Warder, Naresh, Gopal Singh warders and Kuldeep HHG were on duty outside Cell No. 2 in District Jail, Dharamshala along with him. He denied the suggestion that on alarm being raised, Divesh, Naresh, Kuldeep, Gopal and he had rushed to Cell No. 2 and had seen accused person running after the deceased and that thereafter accused cause numerous injuries with fist blows and kicking to the deceased in Cell No. 2. He denied the suggestion that Divesh, Naresh, Gopal, Kuldeep and he rescued the deceased from the grip of the accused person with great difficulty and thereafter, accused person had rushed to his cell inside high security prison. He did not know if Anoop Kumar became unconscious and had injuries on his head. He further denied the suggestion that he was examined by the police on 29.7.2006. He also denied that he had informed the police that accused had badly belaboured Sh. Anoop in his presence. (confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC wherein portion A to A is stated wrong by the witness). He further denied the suggestion that he was scared of accused person and thus resiled from previous statement. 10. PW-4 Suresh Kumar deposed that he was a Pharmacist in District Jail, Dharamshala from 2000 to 2007. On 20.4.2006, he was present in his quarter within jail complex. He was sent for by the jail officials at about 6.15 PM. He further denied the suggestion that he was scared of accused person and thus resiled from previous statement. 10. PW-4 Suresh Kumar deposed that he was a Pharmacist in District Jail, Dharamshala from 2000 to 2007. On 20.4.2006, he was present in his quarter within jail complex. He was sent for by the jail officials at about 6.15 PM. He rushed to the District Jail and examined the deceased. Deceased stood committed to District Jail as a life convict and had been undergoing sentence there. Anoop was found unconscious by him at the gate of the jail. He asked jail officials to immediately take him to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala for treatment. 11. PW-5 Vikram Katoch, Assistant Jail Superintendent is a material witness. He testified that on 20.4.2006, at about 6.10 PM, he was present in his office and Pankaj Sharma, Head Warder was also present with him. At that time, Head Warder Divesh Kumar came to his office and informed him that quarrel had taken place between accused and deceased, and deceased was lying unconscious in the jail. He immediately rushed to jail and asked the Head Warder to close the jail. Thereafter, he, Pankaj and Kirti Kumar rushed to Cell No. 2, where Anoop Kumar was lodged. He noticed bluish marks on the head above his ear. He removed Anoop Kumar from that cell with the help of staff from his cell and took him out of jail near main gate. He managed a vehicle and immediately took Anoop to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. Anoop was admitted in the emergency ward of hospital. CT scan of Anoop was conducted in the hospital. Anoop was unconscious and his condition did not improve. Doctor referred him to PGI Chandigarh. He was asked to arrange for Rs. 18,000/- for his treatment. He returned to his office on that evening and made complaint Ext. PW-5/A and sent the same to the SHO, Police Station, Dharamshala for registration of case. On 21.4.2006, he was deputed by SDM Dharamshala, who was holding charge of Superintendent of Jail to Chandigarh. He reached PGI Chandigarh in the evening and found Anoop Kumar dead. He intimated about death to the SDM through telephone. Local police had also reached. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Chandigarh. Dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased. He reached PGI Chandigarh in the evening and found Anoop Kumar dead. He intimated about death to the SDM through telephone. Local police had also reached. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Chandigarh. Dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased. On 20.4.2006, accused was lodged in 'B' Block i.e. New Jail whereas deceased was lodged in 'A' Block Cell No. 2 i.e. old jail. They used to lodge prisoners of the jail in their cells after sunset. In the month of April, they lodged them in jail at about 6.30 to 6.45 PM. On 21.4.2006, on the request of police he had handed over history ticket of accused duly attested from original consisting of four pages, copies of lock up register having two sheets and certified copies of duty register Ext. PW-5/D in two sheets were also taken into possession in the presence of Kuldeep Singh and Pankaj Sharma. In his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that the District Jail had facility of Medical Officer and Pharmacist. He also admitted the suggestion that MO and Pharmacist were available in the Jail, around the clock. He admitted that Anoop was taken to the hospital without being checked by MO of the Jail. 12. PW-6 Divesh Kumar testified that accused was convicted in a case under Section 302 IPC and was lodged in District Jail, Dharamshala. Deceased was also convicted under Section 302 IPC and was lodged in District Jail, Dharamshala. On 20.4.2006, he was on duty in the District Jail, Dharamshala from 12 noon to sunset i.e. the time when prisoners are kept in lockup. At about 6.10 PM, he was inside the jail premises. He heard noise of quarrel from Chakki No.2 i.e. room of jail. He immediately rushed to Chakki No. 2 along with Naresh Warder. When they reached in that room, Gopal Singh Head Warder, HHC Kuldeep and HHG Prakash Chand also met them who were also on duty on that day. He noticed accused giving fist blows and kicks to the deceased inside the room. He could not tell which portion of body was hit by kicks and fist blows. He along with other officials intervened and saved Anoop Kumar from the accused. Accused had been taken out of that room by them and thereafter accused had gone to barrack No. 2. He could not tell which portion of body was hit by kicks and fist blows. He along with other officials intervened and saved Anoop Kumar from the accused. Accused had been taken out of that room by them and thereafter accused had gone to barrack No. 2. Anoop Kumar was serious at that time and he was unconscious. He noticed bluish injury mark on the head of Anoop Kumar above his left ear. He had also noticed one scratch on the cheek of Anoop Kumar. On that day, Vikram Katoch, Assistant Superintendent Jail-cum-Deputy Superintendent Jail as Superintendent of Jail was on leave and SDM was holding charge of the Superintendent of Jail. He rushed to the office of Vikram Katoch and informed him about the incident. He informed Vikram Katoch at 6.10 PM in his office. Thereafter, Vikram Katoch with Pankaj Sharma, Pawan Kumar, Dalip Kumar and him came to the room of Anoop Kumar. They removed Anoop Kumar from that room to the outer gate of District Jail, Dharamshala. He was ordered by Vikram Katoch to close the jail after lodging the prisoners inside their rooms. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there are two jail buildings, one is old and the other is new. He also admitted that there was a wall in between old and new jails. There was also a gate where gate keeper remained on duty. He denied that gate is always locked. He admitted that the accused had made many complaints against the jail authorities about manhandling and of misbehaviour. He did not remember the exact date on which his statement was recorded by the police. 13. PW-7 Gopal Singh, Head Warder deposed that on 20.4.2006, he was on duty in District Jail, Dharamshala from 12 noon till 6.30-6.45 PM. At about 6 PM, he heard noise of quarrel coming from cell No. 2 where deceased was lodged. At that time, prisoners were not locked in their rooms and they were out of their rooms. Thereafter he along with Divesh Kumar, Naresh Warder, HHG Kuldeep and HHG Prakash had gone to Cell No. 2. They noticed accused giving beatings to the deceased with fist blows and slaps. Accused had inflicted injuries on the head of deceased above his left ear. They intervened and separated accused and deceased. Thereafter accused had gone to new jail, where he was lodged. Anoop Kumar became unconscious. They noticed accused giving beatings to the deceased with fist blows and slaps. Accused had inflicted injuries on the head of deceased above his left ear. They intervened and separated accused and deceased. Thereafter accused had gone to new jail, where he was lodged. Anoop Kumar became unconscious. Thereafter, Vikram Katoch came to the spot with Pankaj. Vikram Katoch ordered to lodge prisoners inside their rooms. Vehicle was arranged and injured was taken to the District Hospital for treatment. He accompanied Anoop Kumar to District Hospital, Dharamshala. Anoop Kumar was admitted in the hospital and was further referred to PGI Chandigarh for treatment, where he died. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that accused made many complaints against jail authorities for misbehaviour etc. He admitted the suggestion that between two jails, there was a wall having a gate connecting them. He admitted that the gate was guarded by a gate keeper. He admitted that register is maintained at the gate. 14. PW-8 Naresh Singh deposed that on 20.4.2006, he assumed his duty at 6 PM and his duty was upto 10 PM. At that time, Gopal Singh and Divesh Kumar were Head Warders and HHG Kuldeep and Parkash Chand were also on duty in the jail. At that time, prisoners were not lodged in their lockup. At about 6.05 PM, he heard noise of quarrel from Chakki No. 2. Anoop had been lodged in that Cell. On hearing the noise of quarrel, he went towards Chakki No. 2 and noticed accused was beating Anoop Kumar with fist blows and kicks. There were no other prisoners in the room. They intervened and saved deceased from the hands of the accused. Accused had gone to barrack thereafter. He noticed bluish mark on the head of Anoop Kumar above ear. Anoop Kumar had become unconscious by that time. Thereafter, Divesh informed Assistant Superintendent Jail Vikram Katoch, in his office. Vikram Katoch with Warder Pankaj and Divesh came to Chakki No. 2. Anoop Kumar had been taken to the outer gate of jail by them from where Anoop Kumar was taken to District Hospital, Dharamshala by Vikram Katoch. In his cross-examination, he admitted that about 60 prisoners were present in the new jail complex. He also admitted that Anoop and Rajinder were lodged in old jail. 15. PW-10 Kuldeep Singh has also corroborated the statement of PW-8. In his cross-examination, he admitted that about 60 prisoners were present in the new jail complex. He also admitted that Anoop and Rajinder were lodged in old jail. 15. PW-10 Kuldeep Singh has also corroborated the statement of PW-8. According to him also, he was on duty in central beat of jail. He heard noise of quarrel from Cell No. 2. He immediately rushed to Chakki No. 2 and saw accused and deceased fighting inside Chakki No. 2. He saw accused giving beatings to Anoop Kumar. He noticed accused giving 1-2 fist blows on the head of deceased Anoop Kumar. Head Warder Gopal also reached there. At that time there were only accused and deceased in Chakki No. 2. Thereafter, Head Warder Divesh and HHG Joginder also reached there. They separated accused and Anoop Kumar. Thereafter accused had gone toward Block 'B' of the jail. Anoop was lying on the floor and was not able to speak. Thereafter, Head Warder Divesh had gone to the office of Assistant Superintendent of Jail to inform Vikram Katoch. Vikram Katoch with Pankaj Warder and Head Warder Divesh came to Cell No.2. Anoop Kumar was taken by the staff to the outer gate of jail. He remained there in the jail upto 10 PM. 16. PW-12 Om Prakash deposed that the deceased Anoop Kumar was also undergoing life imprisonment. Behaviour of accused towards jail officials was not good. He wanted to create unlawful authority on the other inmates of the prison. Deceased being a local person did not accept the authority of accused. On 12.6.2006, Inspector SHO R.P. Jaswal had visited District Jail, Dharamshala and on his request he had supplied to him attested photocopies of application for conducting post-mortem examination Ext. PW-12/A. 17. PW-13 Dr. Dilavar Singh deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer in District Jail, Dharamshala from 2004. His official residence was within jail campus. On 20.4.2006 at about 7 PM, he was present in his quarter when Assistant Superintendent of Jail, Vikram Katoch telephonically informed him that Anoop and accused had quarreled and condition of Anoop was serious and he had been removed to the District Hospital, Dharamshala. He visited District Hospital, Dharamshala. When he reached there, Anoop was unconscious. He was taken for CT Scan. He was further referred to PGI Chandigarh for treatment and management. 18. PW-15 Dr. He visited District Hospital, Dharamshala. When he reached there, Anoop was unconscious. He was taken for CT Scan. He was further referred to PGI Chandigarh for treatment and management. 18. PW-15 Dr. Pardeep Kumar conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. According to his opinion, cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the brain, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Probable time which had elapsed between injuries and death was within 24 hours and between death and post mortem examination was within 48 hours as per record. 19. PW-17 SI Ranjit Singh, deposed that he was posted as ASI /Investigating Officer in the Police Station, Dharamshala. On 20.4.2006 at 9.05 PM, SHO Om Parkash had deputed him along with Constable Sanjeev Kumar in Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala on the basis of Rapat No. 26 of daily diary, copy of which is Ext. PW-16/A. He reached the hospital and found that Anoop Kumar was under treatment. He moved application Ext. PW-1/A for obtaining MLC and opinion of the Doctor whether injured was fit to make statement or not. Doctor declared Anoop Kumar not fit to make statement. He telephonically informed SHO Om Parkash about this position. Thereafter, as per the direction of SHO PS Dharamshala, he went to the District Jail, Dharamshala and reached there at about 10.15 PM on 20.4.2006. Assistant Superintendent of Jail Vikram Katoch met him in Jail. 20. PW-18 ASI Surjit Kumar deposed that on 21.4.2006 at about 9 AM, on the order of SHO Police Station, Dharamshala, ASI Ranjit Singh had handed over case file to him for further investigation. He went to the jail on the same day and associated jail officials in the investigation. He prepared site plan of the Jail which is Ext. PW-18/A. 21. PW-19 Dr. Veena deposed that she medically examined Anoop Kumar son of Hans Raj, who was brought from District Jail, Dharamshala. Attendants of convict had brought him with alleged history of short scuffle. Patient was unconscious and not responding to external stimuli on verbal command. He was admitted in male surgical ward for further treatment and investigation. She issued MLC Ext. PW-19/A. According to her, probable time of injuries was within six hours and weapon used was blunt. 22. PW-21 Dr. Attendants of convict had brought him with alleged history of short scuffle. Patient was unconscious and not responding to external stimuli on verbal command. He was admitted in male surgical ward for further treatment and investigation. She issued MLC Ext. PW-19/A. According to her, probable time of injuries was within six hours and weapon used was blunt. 22. PW-21 Dr. V.D. Dogra, Assistant Professor, Medicine Department, testified that patient was brought by the police in unconscious state with alleged history of quarrel in the jail at Dharamshala. Patient was not responding to command or deep stimuli. Pupils were bilaterally dilated and fixed and not moving all the four limbs. Patient was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He visited District Jail, Dharamshala on the same day. He took into possession photostat attested copies of two sheets of daily diary Register of Jail with effect from 19.4.2006 to 20.4.2006. History ticket of accused three in number, history ticket of deceased Anoop Kumar, one sheet, register of Barrack lodging of accused and deceased were also taken into possession. He moved an application for preparing inquest papers. CD of post mortem examination had also been got prepared through private videographer. 23. PW-22 Inspector RP Jaswal deposed that on 21.4.2006, after receiving information from PGI Chandigarh that injured Anoop Kumar had succumbed to his injuries, he took over the case file of the case from ASI Surjit Kumar. 24. PW-23 Inderjit Singh Sandhu, Additional Director, Industries and Commerce, deposed that on 22.4.2006, he received a request letter bearing No. 974-75 from Superintendent, District Jail, Dharamshala for conducting inquest proceedings. On this request, inquest proceedings were conducted by him on the same day at PGI Chandigarh, in the presence of Shri Pawan Kumar son of Shri Hans Raj and Desh Raj son of Late Kishori Lal. 25. DW-1 Rajinder Kumar deposed that he was convict in a murder case. His appeal was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. During April, 2006, he was lodged in District Jail, Dharamshala. There were two blocks in the Jail known as new and old blocks. He was in old jail along with Anoop Kumar along with other prisoners. On 19.4.2006, in the morning Anoop had verbal altercation with him about the work assigned to him by the jail administration. During April, 2006, he was lodged in District Jail, Dharamshala. There were two blocks in the Jail known as new and old blocks. He was in old jail along with Anoop Kumar along with other prisoners. On 19.4.2006, in the morning Anoop had verbal altercation with him about the work assigned to him by the jail administration. Complaint was lodged with jail administration about the quarrel and on inquiry jail administration called both of them to the office and tried to prevail over them and on his request, Anoop was lodged in a cell in the old jail by the administration on 19.4.2006. On 20.4.2006, around 5 PM, when he was going to attend the call of nature inside the old block, Anoop came to him and started quarreling with him and due to that he had been lodged in a cell from the barrack. In the meantime, guard of the jail administration came there and separated them. After some time Anoop climbed the lintel of a barrack which was being raised in the old block. Later he came to know that Anoop had sustained injury on his person. They had lifted him to the main gate of jail and thereafter, Anoop was taken to the hospital. In between two blocks of the jail, there was a wall which was having a gate and sentry used to guard that gate. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not lodged any complaint against Anoop Kumar. Volunteered that the guard took them to the office of jail administration on that day. No inquiry was conducted in black and white. Duty guards were Kuldeep and Guleria. Volunteered that he did not remember their names. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Gopal Dass, Dinesh HW and Joginder HHG came on the spot. 26. Accused was undergoing life sentence at District Jail, Dharamshala. Incident had taken place in the evening on 20.4.2006. PW-2 Pankaj Sharma has deposed that he was on duty in his office with Vikram Katoch. At 6 PM, when he was working in the office, Shri Divesh Kumar Head Warder had rushed to their office room. He informed that the accused person and Anoop Kumar were engaged in a fight. Anoop stood locked up in Cell No. 2, whereas, the accused person stood locked up in the high security prison in 'B' Block in the jail complex. He informed that the accused person and Anoop Kumar were engaged in a fight. Anoop stood locked up in Cell No. 2, whereas, the accused person stood locked up in the high security prison in 'B' Block in the jail complex. On receipt of information, he along with Vikram Katoch left their room and reached the spot. At that time, Gopal Head Warder, Pawan HHG and Naresh Warder were present in Cell No. 2 where Anoop was lying unconscious with injuries on the left side of the head. They picked him up and took him to the zonal Hospital Dharamshala. Thereafter, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. Statement of PW-2 Pankaj Sharma has been corroborated by PW-5 Vikram Kotoch. He deposed that he was present in the office with Pankaj Sharma. They were informed by Divesh Kumar that a quarrel had taken place between Amrish Rana and Anoop Kumar. Anoop Kumar was lying unconscious. He immediately rushed to the spot. He was taken out of jail near the main gate. Vehicle was managed. He was rushed to District Hospital, Dharamshala and thereafter referred to PGI Chandigarh. PW-6, Divesh Kumar is an eye witness of the incident. According to him, at 6.10 PM, he was inside the jail premises. He heard noise of quarrel from Chakki No. 2. He rushed to Chakki No. 2 along with Naresh. When he reached the spot, Gopal, Head Warder, HHC Kuldeep and HHG Prakash Chand also met him. They were on duty on that day. They noticed accused giving fist blows and kicks to the deceased inside the room. He along with others intervened and saved Anoop Kumar from the hands of accused. Anoop was unconscious. Statement of PW-6 Divesh Kumar has been duly corroborated by PW-7 Gopal. He noticed accused inflicting injuries to the deceased. According to him, accused inflicted injury on head above left ear. They intervened and separated Anoop Kumar from the accused. PW-8 Naresh Singh has also seen accused giving fist and kick blows to the deceased in Chakki No. 2. He had seen the accused giving kicks and fist blows to the deceased. Similarly, PW-10, Kuldeep Singh was also on duty and he has seen accused giving beatings to the deceased. Similarly, PW-2 Pankaj Sharma, PW-5 Vikram Katoch were on duty on 20.4.2006. They immediately rushed to the spot when informed by PW-6 Divesh Kumar about the incident. He had seen the accused giving kicks and fist blows to the deceased. Similarly, PW-10, Kuldeep Singh was also on duty and he has seen accused giving beatings to the deceased. Similarly, PW-2 Pankaj Sharma, PW-5 Vikram Katoch were on duty on 20.4.2006. They immediately rushed to the spot when informed by PW-6 Divesh Kumar about the incident. PW-6 Divesh Kumar, PW-7 Gopal Singh, PW-8 Naresh Singh and PW-10 Kuldeep have all seen the accused beating the deceased. Deceased had become unconscious. He was removed from the Cell. He was taken to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala and thereafter referred to PGI Chandigarh. Post-mortem was conducted by PW-15 Dr. Pardeep Kumar, Medical Officer, PGI Chandigarh. Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the brain, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Probable time which had elapsed between injuries and death was within 24 hours and between death and post mortem examination was within 48 hours as per record. PW-19 Dr. Veena has issued MLC Ext. PW-19/A. According to her, probable time of injuries was within six hours and weapon used was blunt. PW-21 Dr. V.D. Dogra deposed that as per consultation with Consultant Medicine on duty, patient required surgical evacuation, hence, patient was referred to PGI Chandigarh. 27. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate has vehemently argued that the accused had no intention to cause death. It was a case of sudden provocation. However, there is no merit in the contention. The accused had the intention to kill the deceased since he has given blows on the vital organs of the body. He has purposely given beatings on the head. Witnesses have also noticed the injuries on the body of deceased. There were abrasions over left cheek and contusions over left front temporal region. Injuries, according to PW-15 Dr. Pardeep Kumar were to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 28. Their lordships of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 317 , have explained the difference between "intention" and "knowledge" and have held that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention and such consequences shall ensue. 28. Their lordships of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 317 , have explained the difference between "intention" and "knowledge" and have held that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention and such consequences shall ensue. As compared to "knowledge", "intention" requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely, the purposeful doing a thing to achieve a particular end. Their lordships have held as follows: "11. Intention is different from motive. It is the intention with which the act is done that makes a difference in arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. The third clause of Section 300 IPC consists of two parts. Under the first part it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is present and under the second part it must be proved that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Considering the clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC and reiterating the principles in Virsa Singh's case, in Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration) (1991) 2 SCC 32 , para (12), this Court held as under:- "Referring to these observations, Division Bench of this Court in Jagrup Singh case, (1981) 3 SCC 616 observed thus: (SCC p. 620, para 7) "These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus classicus. The test laid down in Virsa Singh case, AIR 1958 SC 465 for the applicability of Clause Thirdly is now ingrained in our legal system and has become part of the rule of law." The Division Bench also further held that the decision in Virsa Singh case AIR 1958 SC 465 has throughout been followed as laying down the guiding principles. In both these cases it is clearly laid down that the prosecution must prove: (1) that the body injury is present, (2) that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, (3) that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury that is to say it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. In other words Clause Thirdly consists of two parts. In other words Clause Thirdly consists of two parts. The first part is that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present and the second part that the said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Under the first part the prosecution has to prove from the given facts and circumstances that the intention of the accused was to cause that particular injury. Whereas the second part whether it was sufficient to cause death is an objective enquiry and it is a matter of inference or deduction from the particulars of the injury. The language of Clause Thirdly of Section 300 speaks of intention at two places and in each the sequence is to be established by the prosecution before the case can fall in that clause. The 'intention' and 'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind and their existence has to be gathered from the circumstances, such as the weapon used, the ferocity of attack, multiplicity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the Code designedly used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and it is accepted that the knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention that such consequences should ensue. As compared to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end." 29. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate has also argued that the prosecution has not examined independent witnesses. The fight has take place inside the District Jail, Dharamshala. There was no occasion for independent witnesses except official witnesses. Statements of official witnesses are confidence inspiring and natural. They have no enmity with the accused. Learned trial Court has rightly discarded the statement of DW-1 Rajinder. Single testimony of DW-1 Rajinder is not sufficient to rebut statements of eye witness PW-6 Divesh Kumar. Statements of witnesses have been duly corroborated by the medical officers. 30. Statements of official witnesses are confidence inspiring and natural. They have no enmity with the accused. Learned trial Court has rightly discarded the statement of DW-1 Rajinder. Single testimony of DW-1 Rajinder is not sufficient to rebut statements of eye witness PW-6 Divesh Kumar. Statements of witnesses have been duly corroborated by the medical officers. 30. Thus, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment/order of the learned trial Court. 31. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. All pending applications are also dismissed.