JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment dated 22.07.2011, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly, facts in the matter are that a written complaint was filed by one Shri Chhoggiri resident of Ratanpura stating therein that the accused Heergiri is the son of his uncle Narayangiri having his Dhani (hamlet) located in front of Dhani of his father Bhemgiri. The accused Heergiri (his uncle's son) has murdered his mother in the past. Immediately, after having been released from jail, he was staying with his wife Indra and kids at his in-laws house, only 10 to 15 days back Heergiri along with his wife and children started living in his own Dhani (hamlet). On 18th February, 2009 when the complainant was sitting in his father's Dhani along with his mother, at around 03:30-04:00 O'clock in the evening, the daughters of Heergiri, Vimla and Ramila were shouting that their mother is being beaten. On hearing hue & cry he along with his mother went towards the Dhani (hamlet) of Heergiri and saw that Heergiri was giving blows on the head and face of Indra, Vimla and Ramila were crying/shouting on the spot. After this, the complainant called the inhabitants of the nearby area and ran towards Heergiri. Heergiri ran away along with Kudali and in the meantime Sujanaram Rebari and Bhamararam Meghwal came on the spot of incident. Thereafter, father of Heergiri, Narayangiri and the father of the complainant Bhemgiri alongwith other residents of their village reached the spot. 3. An FIR was lodged on 18th February, 2009 under Section 302 IPC. The same was also presented before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal on 19th February, 2009. 4. The investigation was conducted and a charge-sheet was filed before learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC. 5. The trial Court framed the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the accused preferred trial in the matter after denying the charge levelled against him. 6. During the course of trial total 18 prosecution witnesses were examined and 20 documents were exhibited. 7. 5. The trial Court framed the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the accused preferred trial in the matter after denying the charge levelled against him. 6. During the course of trial total 18 prosecution witnesses were examined and 20 documents were exhibited. 7. The accused/appellant was confronted with the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him by the trial Court by putting questions which were denied by the accused submitting therein that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not murdered his wife. He has reached on the spot after his wife was murdered. Learned trial Court after examining the witnesses and hearing the counsel for the parties, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, therefore, has convicted and sentenced the appellant with imprisonment for life vide order dated 22.07.2011. 8. A close scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses reveals that Chhoggiri (PW-1) has submitted that Heergiri is the son of his uncle and has also murdered his mother before this incident. That around 03:00-04:00 PM on the date of incident when he was at his Dhani(hamlet), the accused along with his wife Indra were fencing their field, which is located just opposite to their Dhani and there is only one road between their Dhanis. This witness further states that on having heard the noise he reached the spot. Heergiri gave blow to his wife Indra on her head and his two daughters Vimla and Ramila also reached the spot, his mother also went towards the place of incident. He further submits that after this blow Indra fell on the ground. 9. PW-2, Kanku Devi submits that around 03:00-04:00 PM, while she was standing in front of her Dhani, she heard hue and cry and went towards the spot, where she saw that Indra was lying on the spot and Heergiri was standing nearby with a Kudali in his hand and Indra was struggling for life due to the injury suffered. She submits that on the spot Chhoggiri, Ramila and Vimla were also present. 10. PW-3, Vimla who is the daughter of the accused Heergiri stated that at around 03:00-04:00 PM, she along with her sister Ramila were standing in their courtyard and while fencing their field her mother and father were having a heated altercations. She submits that on the spot Chhoggiri, Ramila and Vimla were also present. 10. PW-3, Vimla who is the daughter of the accused Heergiri stated that at around 03:00-04:00 PM, she along with her sister Ramila were standing in their courtyard and while fencing their field her mother and father were having a heated altercations. She further submits that her mother Indra was given a Kudali blow from behind the head by his father, after this they were terrified and therefore, both, she and her sister went to their uncle's house and thereafter, Chhoggiri (PW-1), Kanku Devi (PW-2) also came on the spot. She very categorically stated that her father has committed two murders first her grandmother i.e. mother of the Heergiri and then their mother i.e. wife of Heergiri. The reason for killing her mother by her father is not known to her but she died due to the injury caused by her father to her mother. PW-4, Ramila who is the daughter of Heergiri has also submitted on the same lines and narrated the incident in the same way as has been done by PW-3 her sister Vimla. PW-5, Bhemgiri submits that when he reached the spot his son Chhoggiri and his wife were standing on the road and the body of Indra was lying nearby. He also submits that the accused was giving beatings to his wife in the past also. PW-6, Bhamararam submits that around 04:00 O'clock while he was going from Ratanpur to Chitalwana road along with Sujana Rebari, on hearing the noise from the close vicinity when they walked further they saw that Heergiri was running with a Kudali and his wife Indra was lying dead on the spot. PW-7, Sujanaram Rebari also stated on the same lines has submitted by PW-6 (Bhamararam). PW-8 Lalaram is a Police Constable who has attested the arrest memo of the Heergiri. PW-9, Khangar @ Thangar is the attesting witness of Exhibits-P-4, P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10, which are the recovered articles from the spot. PW-10, Umaram has attested the arrest memo (Ex.P-7). PW-11, Rajgiri is the person who has visited the site and has prepared Naksha Mauka (Site Plan), he has also collected the samples of blood stained soil from the spot and has placed in the sealed cover. PW-10, Umaram has attested the arrest memo (Ex.P-7). PW-11, Rajgiri is the person who has visited the site and has prepared Naksha Mauka (Site Plan), he has also collected the samples of blood stained soil from the spot and has placed in the sealed cover. Thereafter, he has submitted that after having conducted the postmortem has handed-over the dead body of Indra to Chhoggiri for last rites. He has also submitted that in the opinion of Panchan the death of Indra was caused due to the injuries suffered on her body. PW-12, Dr. Rohitash Kumar who was a Member of the Board who has conducted post-mortem submits that on external examination of the body an incised wound of dimension 12 x 2.00 cm x brain deep with some part of brain protruding out on the back side of head and one more scratch of 1 x 1 cm on the left knee was seen. On internal examination, it was also found that on the back side of the head the occipital bone was fractured with congested membrane. He has submitted that the cause of death of deceased Indra was brain hemorrhage due to the above-mentioned external and internal injuries suffered by her. PW-15, Dharmendra Hudda who was the head constable and was posted at Police Station Chitalwana on having received the written information at around 05:30 PM, registered the same. He was also holding the charge of Maalkhana on that particular day, where the recovered material was received by him and, thereafter, the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-16, Derawar Singh who is the Investigating Officer, who has also recorded the statements of Narayangiri, Dharmendra Hudda, Mahendra Singh, Amar Singh and Bhemgiri as narrated by them. PW-17, Amar Singh who was posted as Station House Officer of Police Station Chitalwana. During the course of investigation, he inspected the site of incident and has made the recoveries in the matter and after having prepared all the reports along with memos (Fard) the entire result of investigation was given to ASI Meethalal for submitting it before the trial Court. PW-18, Mahendra Singh has submitted that while he was working in the Forensic Science Laboratory Branch of the Superintendent of Police Office, Jalore, he received six packets in the sealed condition from constable Amar Singh. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have scanned the records minutely. 12. PW-18, Mahendra Singh has submitted that while he was working in the Forensic Science Laboratory Branch of the Superintendent of Police Office, Jalore, he received six packets in the sealed condition from constable Amar Singh. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have scanned the records minutely. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the earlier matter in which the appellant was charged with the murder of his mother has been decided in his favour and he has been acquitted for the charge of killing his mother, further it has also been argued that there is only a single injury which has been caused by the appellant, therefore, the case of the appellant does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II IPC. He further submits that appellant is behind the bar for more than eight years. He submits that in order to look after his two daughters, the offence alleged against the appellant not being premeditated, with only a single injury case, the same is liable to be converted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and hence having already undergone a sentence of more than eight years, the appeal to that extent should be allowed. 13. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offence under Section 302 IPC is proved without any shadow of doubt against the appellant, the life imprisonment is the only appropriate punishment and has therefore, supported the judgment dated 22.07.2011. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that in view of the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW- 3 and PW-4 namely Chhoggiri, Kanku, Vimla and Ramila along with the postmortem report and the recoveries made from and at the instance of accused, conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC is just and proper and the same is required to be upheld. There is no reason that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 who are the daughters of the accused be disbelieved. 14. On a thoughtful consideration of the entire material before us, we are of the view that in view of the categorical statements made by Chhoggiri (PW-1), Kanku (PW-2), Vimla (PW-3) and Ramila (PW-4), the fatal injury caused to the deceased Smt. Indra attributed to accused Heergiri is proved beyond doubt. 14. On a thoughtful consideration of the entire material before us, we are of the view that in view of the categorical statements made by Chhoggiri (PW-1), Kanku (PW-2), Vimla (PW-3) and Ramila (PW-4), the fatal injury caused to the deceased Smt. Indra attributed to accused Heergiri is proved beyond doubt. In one voice all the four witnesses mentioned above have stated that Smt. Indra was given a Kudali blow by accused Heergiri on the back of her head due to which Smt. Indra fell on the ground and ultimately succumbed to the injury caused by her husband Heergiri. PW-3 and PW-4 are the two daughters of Heergiri and both have very categorically mentioned that they have seen the incident from their court-yard and the present accused i.e. their father has given a Kudali blow on the back side head of their mother, deceased Smt. Indra and due to which Smt. Indra has died. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the evidence given by the two daughters of accused Heergiri, which is corroborated by the medical evidence, postmortem report and the recoveries made therein. 15. In the statements of PW-12 Dr. Rohtash Kumar who has conducted the postmortem of deceased Indra, incised wound 12 x 2.00 cm x brain deep with some part of brain protruding out and fracture of occipital bone was mentioned and cause of death is also mentioned as the external and internal injury causing brain hemorrhage. 16. Further, the recovery of Kudali at the instance of Heergiri with blood stains and Forensic Science Laboratory report stating that blood stains of human origin found on the articles recovered from the spot corroborates the statements recorded during trial. 17. We find that the chain of events and the corroboration of the prosecution case with the eye-witnesses conclusively goes to show that the offence under Section 302 IPC is proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. In Jagrup Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1552 it was held that there is no justification for the assertion that the giving of a solitary blow on a vital part of the body resulting in the death must always necessarily reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Code. If a man deliberately strikes another on the head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod or even a lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull, he must in the absence of any circumstances negativing the presumption be deemed to have intended to cause the death of the victim or such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death. The whole thing depends upon the intention to cause death and the case may be covered by either Clause Firstly or Clause Thirdly. The nature of intention must be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon the death. 18. In Bavisetti Kameshwara Rao @ Babai vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 1854 it was held that it is seen that where in the murder case there is only a single injury, there is always a tendency to advance an argument that the offence would invariably be covered under Section 304 Part II IPC. The nature of offence where there is a single injury could not be decided merely on the basis of a single injury and thus in a mechanical fashion. The nature of the offence would certainly depend upon the other attendant circumstances which would help the court to find definitely about the intention on the part of the accused. Such attendant circumstances could be very many, they being (i) whether the act was pre-meditated; (ii) the nature of weapon used; (iii) the nature of assault on the accused. This is certainly not exhaustive list and every case has to necessarily depend upon the evidence available. As regards the user of screw driver, the learned counsel urged that it was only the accidental use at the spur of the moment and, therefore, there could be no intention to either cause death or cause such bodily injury as would be sufficient to cause death. Merely because the screw driver was a usual tool used by the accused in his business, it could not be as if its user would be innocuous. 19. Merely because the screw driver was a usual tool used by the accused in his business, it could not be as if its user would be innocuous. 19. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the present case the injury caused with a sharp edged weapon on the vital part of the body i.e. behind the head of the deceased giving an incised wound and fracture of the occipital bone brings the present case within ambit of Section 300 IPC and a sentence awarded under Section 302 IPC is, therefore, correct and we are not impressed by the contention that only single blow was given to the deceased Smt. Indra and no repeated injury was caused, but the very fact that the injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon on the vital part of the body i.e. head with such a force that the occipital bone of deceased Smt. Indra got fractured shows the force with which the blow was given clearly indicates the intention that the same was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, therefore, a case to convert the same under Section 304 Part II IPC is not made out. 20. We cannot lose sight of the allegations leveled against the accused of having murdered his mother, although, acquittal was recorded in that case on account of witnesses having been declared hostile. The conduct of the accused-appellant also reflects his mentality and to take lenient view in the matter may not be a healthy sign for a cultured and peaceful society. 21. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that the judgment dated 22.07.2011 is required to be upheld and the conviction recorded and sentence awarded is thus, maintained. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.