JUDGMENT B. Mohanty, J. - The appellant, namely, Braja @ Birgu Lakra has preferred the above noted Jail Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment dated 10.02.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sundergarh in Sessions Trial No.18/150 of 200304 by which he has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in case of default in making payment, he undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2003 at about 08:30 P.M. the appellant and his elder brother were quarreling over a Dimiri Tree as the same had been cut away by somebody. The elder brother of the appellant blamed him for cutting of the said Dimiri Tree. This quarrel developed into a tussle and the appellant bringing out a dry wooden stick from his house and while saying that he would kill the elder brother, gave blows on his head and other parts of the body as a result of which the elder brother sustained bleeding injury on his head. Since it was night, the injured elder brother could not be brought to the hospital and on the next day morning he was brought to the Government hospital at Kutra and thereafter informant on the basis of information received from the wife of the deceased lodged written report at police station, which was marked as Ext.1 during trial. On the strength of the said FIR Kutra P.S. Case No.08 of 2003 was registered under section 341/294/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code and P.W. 10 took up investigation. During course of investigation dying declaration pursuant to requisition under Exhibit 12 was recorded by the treating Doctor (P.W.6) on 07.03.2003. Thereafter, the victim was referred to District Headquarters Hospital, Sundergarh for better treatment but he died on the way. Accordingly the death of the elder brother of appellant was reported to police. Thus the case was converted to one under Section 302, IPC. During such investigation, inquest was held. Thereafter, the victim was referred to District Headquarters Hospital, Sundergarh for better treatment but he died on the way. Accordingly the death of the elder brother of appellant was reported to police. Thus the case was converted to one under Section 302, IPC. During such investigation, inquest was held. Thereafter the investigation was taken over by P.W.8, who seized one wooden frame of a cot and arrested the appellant on 07.03.2003 at 3:00 P.M. and he recorded the statement of the appellant and sent the seized weapon of offence to P.W.12, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination for his opinion. Seized materials were also sent to SFSL, Rasulgarh for chemical examination. On completion of investigation P.W.8 filed charge sheet against the appellant under section 302, IPC and accordingly the appellant stood his trial. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined as many as 12 witnesses. P.W.1 is the widow of the deceased. P.W.2 is the informant and is the nephew of both the appellant and deceased. P.W.3 is a neighbour, who also appears to be the Grama Rakhi. P.W. 4 is a co-villager. P.W.5 is also a co-villager, who was a witness to inquest. He is also a witness to the seizure of weapon of offence under Ext. 3/1. P.W.6 happens to be the first Doctor who treated the victim at Primary Health Centre, Kutra and recorded the dying declaration of the victim through P.W.11. P.W.7 is the crime havildar, Kutra Police Station. P.W.10 is the first Investigating Officer and P.W.8 is the second Investigating Officer. P.W.9 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.11 is the Pharmacist at Kutra Hospital who noted down the dying declaration. P.W.12 is the Doctor who conducted the autopsy. Further from the side of the prosecution 13 documents were marked as exhibits. Also from their side six material objects were marked. 4. The plea of the appellant was complete denial. Further during his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C., 1973 the appellant stated that he was not present in the house on the date of occurrence. None has been examined from his side and no document has been exhibited on his behalf. 5. Learned trial Court after scanning the evidence on record came to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case and accordingly convicted the appellant under section 302, IPC. 6. None has been examined from his side and no document has been exhibited on his behalf. 5. Learned trial Court after scanning the evidence on record came to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case and accordingly convicted the appellant under section 302, IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that this being a case of circumstantial evidence and since the chain of circumstance is not complete, the learned trial Court has gone wrong in recording conviction of the appellant under section 302, IPC. In the alternative he submitted that conceding for a moment but not admitting that prosecution has been able to make out a case against the appellant, even then the appellant could not have been convicted under section 302, IPC as his case would fall under Exception-4 of Section 300, IPC. In this context he submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 9 clearly pointed out that prior to occurrence both the appellant and deceased had a quarrel over Dimiri Tree being cut and later the quarrel developed into fighting/tussle between the two brothers and following such quarrel when the victim was moving out, at that point of time the appellant assaulted the victim by means of a wooden frame of a cot (MOI) thereby causing bleeding injury on his head, which ultimately resulted in his death. Thus according to him since the occurrence took place without premeditation following a sudden quarrel in the heat of the passion, defence case is clearly covered by Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC. He further submitted that appellant is in custody for more than fifteen years and since there has been a wrong appreciation of the evidence by the learned Trial Court either the appellant be acquitted of the charge or in the alternative he be set at liberty after altering his conviction to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and by sentencing him for the period he has already suffered incarceration. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions of this Court in Arjun Kisan vs. State of Orissa reported in (2016) 64 OCR (SC) 712, Gopinath Paraja vs. State of Orissa reported in (2017) 66 OCR 284, Miniaka Masuri vs. State of Orissa reported in (2018) 69 OCR 500, Hadi Sisa vs. State of Orissa reported in (2018) 70 OCR 267 and decision of Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan, Appellant vs. Dhool Singh, respondent as reported in AIR 2004 SC 1264 . He also filed a date chart/written note of argument. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant should not be accepted as there exists enough material on record for convicting the appellant under section 302, IPC. He mainly relied on evidence of P.Ws.1,2,3,6 and 11. He also placed strong reliance on the dying declaration as recorded by P.W.6 through P.W.11. 8. In order to appreciate submissions of both the learned counsel we think it proper to scan the evidence on record. At the outset it may be noted that homicidal nature of death of the victim has remained undisputed. P.W.1, who happens to be the wife of the deceased has testified that the appellant is her brother-in-law and two years back in one evening there was a quarrel between her deceased husband and the appellant concerning a Dimiri Tree, which has been cut away by somebody. Such quarrel got converted into fight between two brothers and she persuaded them not to quarrel and accordingly they separated. Sometime thereafter when the victim was coming out of the house, at that time, the appellant assaulted him by means of the wooden frame of a cot. Hearing the sound of the assault, she came out and saw her husband lying on the ground with bleeding injury on his face and chest. He was senseless and the appellant was standing near him holding the wooden frame of a cot by which he has assaulted the victim. Upon nurturing, the victim regained sense and disclosed before her that the appellant had assaulted him. Hearing her cry, P.Ws.2 and 3 came to her house and she narrated the incident before them. P.W.3 snatched away the weapon of the offence from the appellant and kept the same with him. Upon nurturing, the victim regained sense and disclosed before her that the appellant had assaulted him. Hearing her cry, P.Ws.2 and 3 came to her house and she narrated the incident before them. P.W.3 snatched away the weapon of the offence from the appellant and kept the same with him. She could not take her husband to the hospital since it was night. On the next day morning she brought him to hospital at Kutra with the help of P.Ws.2 and 3. Thereafter, she sent P.W.2 to report the matter at the Police Station. Since the condition of her husband deteriorated, the Doctor at Kutra referred her husband to District Headquarters Hospital, Sundergarh but her husband died on the way. Accordingly they returned back and the fact of death was reported at the Police Station. She further stated that at that point of time her husband was wearing Lungi and Ganji which were stained with blood. She further admitted that she had stated before the police that the appellant had confessed before P.W.3 in her presence that he had assaulted her husband. In cross-examination she stated that P.Ws.2 and 3 are her immediate neighbours and she denied a suggestion that the deceased husband fell down during the tussle between him and the appellant resulting in injuries, which ultimately led to his death. She however admitted that there was quarrel between her husband and the appellant prior to the occurrence and a meeting was convened in the village to resolve the dispute. P.W.2, who happens to be the informant in his examination-in-chief has testified that hearing the cry of P.W.1, he went to her house and found her husband with bleeding injuries on his head and chest. At that point of time some villagers including P.W.3 were present in the spot but the appellant was not there. P.W.1 disclosed him that appellant had assaulted her husband by means of wooden frame of a cot following quarrel over a Dimiri Tree. On the next day morning he along with others (P.Ws.1, 3 and 4) took the injured to the hospital at Kutra. After admitting the victim at hospital, he went to the police station as per instruction of P.W.1 and lodged a written report/FIR relating to the occurrence as under Ext.1. On the next day morning he along with others (P.Ws.1, 3 and 4) took the injured to the hospital at Kutra. After admitting the victim at hospital, he went to the police station as per instruction of P.W.1 and lodged a written report/FIR relating to the occurrence as under Ext.1. When he returned back to the hospital, he came to know that the Doctor at Kutra had referred the victim to District Headquarters Hospital, Sundergarh for better treatment. However, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way. In this background, they returned back to Kutra and went to the police station along with P.W.3 and reported the matter. On receipt of the information, police came to Barigaon where the dead body was kept and held inquest over the same. In his cross-examination, he stated that the husband of P.W.1 was conscious when he met him in night, after occurrence and he narrated before him that the appellant had assaulted him. There was an injury on the forehead of the deceased. Though in cross examination P.W.2 stated that he scribed the FIR as per the dictation of police, however in the re-examination on recall he made it clear that the facts stated in the FIR were within his knowledge as derived from P.W.1 and her deceased husband. He scribed the FIR since police instructed him to give a written report. In further cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that he had scribed the FIR as per dictation of the police. P.W.3 also reached the spot after he heard the cry of P.W.1 and found the husband of P.W.1 with bleeding injuries on his face and chest. On being asked by him, the victim stated that the appellant had assaulted him. This version corroborates similar testimonies by P.Ws.1 and 2. He has further stated that P.W.1 disclosed before him that there was a quarrel between her deceased husband and the appellant concerning a Dimiri Tree and that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by means of wooden frame of a cot. At that point of time the appellant was standing nearby holding the wooden frame and he snatched the same from him. He also spoke of seizure of wooden frame by police. The version of P.w.3 with regard to statement of the victim that on being asked the deceased told that the appellant had assaulted him remains un-demolished in the crossexamination. At that point of time the appellant was standing nearby holding the wooden frame and he snatched the same from him. He also spoke of seizure of wooden frame by police. The version of P.w.3 with regard to statement of the victim that on being asked the deceased told that the appellant had assaulted him remains un-demolished in the crossexamination. However, this version of the statement of victim corroborates the statements of P.W.1 and 2 with regard to the same. P.W.4 though has been declared hostile, in his examination-in-chief has admitted that when hearing hue and cry, he went to the house of the deceased, he found him in conscious state with bleeding injuries on his head. P.W.5 is witness to the seizure of wooden frame of cot under M.O-1 vide Eexhibit-3/1. P.W.6 is the first Doctor who has testified that the three external injuries were simple injuries. However there was symptom of internal haemorrhage. He further made it clear that these injuries can cause death of a person in ordinary course. In cross-examination he opined that had the patient been treated by a neurologist surgeon immediately after the occurrence, he could have survived. On further cross-examination on recall he testified that he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in presence of P.W.11 and another Rambhabati Pradhan. According to him the victim/patient was in a fit medical condition and his examination was in a question answer form. The victim was able to understand the question and was also able to give answers. In response to his question as to how injuries were caused, the victim replied that injuries were caused due to assault by the appellant by means of a piece of wood. He further testified that P.W.11 recorded the statement of victim as per his instruction. He verified such statement recorded by P.W.11 and found the same to be true and correct and accordingly put his signature with official seal. The statement of the victim has been marked as Ext.12/2. In further cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the victim had not given any dying declaration in his presence. P.W.11 is the Pharmacist attached to the Kutra Hospital. He testified that on police requisition, P.W.6 examined the deceased and recorded his statement. The statement was recorded in a question answer form. P.W.6 instructed him to note down the version. Accordingly he noted down the version. P.W.11 is the Pharmacist attached to the Kutra Hospital. He testified that on police requisition, P.W.6 examined the deceased and recorded his statement. The statement was recorded in a question answer form. P.W.6 instructed him to note down the version. Accordingly he noted down the version. He specifically testified that victim in his answer made it clear that he suffered injury on account of assault by his brother. In his crossexamination, he stated that the entire recording of the statement of the victim took about half an hour to forty-five minutes. P.W.12 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on 07.03.2003 he has testified that following injuries were found on the dead body. a) Lacerated wound of face, V/" X 6", %" size 1 /2" below left eye. b) Lacerated would on scalp /" X VV X/" on left side parietal region. c) Bruise 3" X 2" on left side thorasic region on the back. Further he has stated that the internal examination of the body revealed fracture of 9th and 10th ribs and also small depressed fracture of skull on the left side parietal region with hematoma. He has made it clear that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and cause of death was due to intra carnial haemorrhage on account of head injury. Most importantly he has made it clear that these injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. He also opined that the injuries found on the person were possible by the wooden frame of a cot, which was sent to him for his opinion. In the cross-examination he stated that injuries found on the person of the deceased can be possible in exceptional cases if someone falls on hard and blunt surface. P.W.10 is the 1st Investigating Officer who received the FIR under Ext.1 and examined the informant. He issued injury requisition. Since the condition of the patient was deteriorating, he issued requisition for recording dying declaration under Ext.12 and accordingly P.W.6 recorded dying declaration in presence of P.W.11 and another. He testified that he handed over the investigation to P.W.8. He has stated that he was present when P.W.8 kept the seized materials in connection with this case. Accordingly he identified M.O.I to VI. According to him M.O.-II and M.O.III were blood stained. He testified that he handed over the investigation to P.W.8. He has stated that he was present when P.W.8 kept the seized materials in connection with this case. Accordingly he identified M.O.I to VI. According to him M.O.-II and M.O.III were blood stained. In his cross-examination he has stated that the dying declaration of the victim was recorded at 1:00 P.M. and that the patient was conscious. He has also stated that the M.O.I was stained with the blood at the time of seizure. P.W. 8 in his testimony has stated that he took over the investigation from P.W.10 and recorded the statement of witnesses. He visited the spot and seized one wooden frame of a cot on production by the Grama Rakhi. Accordingly he prepared seizure list under Ext.3/1. He arrested the appellant at 3:00 P.M. on O7.03.2o03. On 24.04.2003 he made a query with regard to the weapon of offence under Ext.9 and on the same day he received back the query report along with the MOs from the medical officer. He also proved the chemical examination report under Ext.11. He also testified about the statements of P.W.1 and 4 made before him during course of investigation from which they had resiled in the cross-examination. He also stated that material objects which he had seized during investigation are not available in Court on that date. He denied a suggestion that he had submitted a charge sheet even though not enough material is there against the appellant. P.W.7 is the havildar and as per his statement he is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of deceased and command certificate was produced by him. P.W.9 is the brother-in-law of the deceased, who has reiterated his sister's (P.W.1) version to him that following a family quarrel the appellant caused bleeding injuries on the head of the deceased by means of a piece of wood. 9. The analysis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses reveals as follows:- An analysis of evidence of P.W.1 shows that the core story as delineated by her in examination -in-chief relating to quarrel and assault on her husband by the appellant remain un-demolished. Her testimony makes it clear that she has seen both of them were quarreling though she has not seen the actual assault which occurred sometime after the quarrel. Her testimony makes it clear that she has seen both of them were quarreling though she has not seen the actual assault which occurred sometime after the quarrel. Further, her version that after regaining the sense, the victim disclosed her that the appellant had assaulted him remains undemolished in the cross-examination. Though in her cross-examination, she has stated about confession of appellant before P.W.3 in her presence, however this has not been corroborated by P.W.3. However in her cross-examination, she has made it clear that there was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant prior to occurrence and a meeting was convened in the village to resolve the dispute. An analysis of evidence of P.W.2 show that on hearing the cry of P.W.1, he went to her house and found the victim with bleeding injuries on his head and chest. He has also clearly testified that the victim was conscious and was talking when he met him. The victim clearly narrated before him that the appellant had assaulted him. With regard to scribing of FIR that though there is some contradiction, however, the P.W.2 in his reexamination on recall has made it clear that the facts stated in the FIR were within his knowledge as derived from P.W.1 and the deceased and that he had not scribed the FIR as per the dictation of police but since police instructed him to give a written report, he scribed the same. Thus P.W.2 corroborates the version of P.W.1 with regard to the fact that even after the assault victim was conscious and implicated the appellant. P.Ws. 2 and 3 also corroborate the version of P.W.1 relating to the statement of victim being assaulted by appellant. An analysis of evidence of P.W.6 shows that according to him all the injuries can cause death in ordinary course and his testimony on the dying declaration of the victim has remained un-demolished. It is well settled that a dying declaration can form sole basis of conviction, if it inspires the confidence of the Court. It is important to note here that P.W.6 has clearly stated that the victim was in a fit mental condition and was able to understand the questions, further was also able to give answers. He clearly testified that on being questioned, the victim had replied that it was the appellant, who assaulted him by means of a piece of wood. It is important to note here that P.W.6 has clearly stated that the victim was in a fit mental condition and was able to understand the questions, further was also able to give answers. He clearly testified that on being questioned, the victim had replied that it was the appellant, who assaulted him by means of a piece of wood. Further such dying declaration has been corroborated by the version of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. There is no reason to disbelieve the Doctor namely, P.W.6 when there is nothing on record to show that he was inimically disposed towards the appellant. An analysis of the evidence of P.W.11, another witness to dying declaration, shows that his version corroborates the version of P.W.6 with regard to recording of the dying declaration. His testimony also corroborates the statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 with regard to the version of deceased as to how he was assaulted. An analysis of the evidence of P.W.12 shows that his version in examination-in-chief remains un-demolished and there is nothing to disbelieve his version as there is no evidence to show that he has been inimically disposed towards the appellant. To summarise it is clear from the evidence on record that there was quarrel between the brothers (appellant and the deceased) on account of cutting of Dimiri Tree. Later on, as per the version of P.W.1 the quarrel developed into a fighting. She being an eye witnesses to the quarrel, separated them. Thereafter a meeting was convened in the village to resolve the dispute and sometime thereafter when her husband was coming out of the house, he was assaulted by the appellant by means of wooden frame of cot resulting in bleeding injuries on his face and chest. Thus there is nothing to show that during course of sudden quarrel/sudden fight and in the heat of the passion, the appellant had assaulted the deceased. Rather from the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that there exists a time gap between the fight/quarrel and the timing of assault. There is nothing on evidence/record to show that the span of such time gap to be extremely short. Rather in her cross-examination, P.W.1 has made it clear that after the quarrel between her husband and the appellant, a meeting had been convened in the village to resolve the dispute. There is nothing on evidence/record to show that the span of such time gap to be extremely short. Rather in her cross-examination, P.W.1 has made it clear that after the quarrel between her husband and the appellant, a meeting had been convened in the village to resolve the dispute. In such background it would be reasonable to arrive at a conclusion that the assault had taken place much after certainly with premeditation and not in a sudden fight in the heat of passion. Further there is no evidence to show that appellant picked up the weapon of offence from the spot and suddenly attacked the deceased. Though the external injuries have been described as simple by P.W.6, however both he and P.W.12 have spoken about the symptoms of internal hemorrhage. P.W.12 has specifically testified about fracture of 9th and 10th Ribs and fracture of skull. He has further clearly stated the cause of death to be inter carnial haemorrhage due to head injury. It is extremely important to note here that both the Doctors have stated that injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. Further the dying declaration of victim makes it clear that the assault was by means of a piece of wood. All these can only lead to the conclusion that for a small issue of cutting of a Dimiri Tree, the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual matter after due premeditation. In fact as indicated earlier a Court can record its conviction solely basing on dying declaration. The materials reveal that at the time of recording of dying declaration upon police requisition, the victim was conscious and was in a fit state of mind to understand the questions and was able to give answers. There he has clearly stated that he has suffered injury on account of assault by appellant by means of a piece of wood. Even otherwise this statement of the victim is also corroborated by the versions of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 as before all of them the victim has stated that it was the appellant who has assaulted him. In such background the dying declaration inspires confidence and this Court is satisfied that it was done in a voluntary and truthful manner. Even otherwise this statement of the victim is also corroborated by the versions of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 as before all of them the victim has stated that it was the appellant who has assaulted him. In such background the dying declaration inspires confidence and this Court is satisfied that it was done in a voluntary and truthful manner. The testimony of P.W.6 in his cross-examination that had the deceased got timely treatment, he could have survived is of no consequence as both the doctors namely P.W.6 and 12 have admitted that the injuries caused to the victim are sufficient in ordinary course to result in death. Further P.W.12 has opined that injuries suffered by the deceased was possible by wooden frame of a cot i.e. M.O.I. Besides this the Chemical Examination report also shows human blood on the same. All these indicate that present case is clearly covered by Clause 'Thirdly' of Section 300, IPC and Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC can have no application to the facts of present case. 10. Now coming to the judgments of this Court cited by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the appellant, in our view the said judgments are distinguishable on facts and have no application to the present case. With regard to Arjun Kisan's case (supra) this Court has come to a conclusion that the appellant therein had intended to celebrate the annual festival of Pusa Purnima with the money provided by the Manager. When the deceased refused to pay money, the appellant was provoked with sudden anger and at the spur of the moment assaulted the deceased with wooden handle of a spade found lying at the spot. Thus there was no premeditation. Accordingly this Court altered the conviction from one under Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304, Part I, IPC. But in the present case as discussed there exists a time gap between quarrel and assault and there is nothing to show that such time gap is extremely small. Further there is nothing to show that the appellant had picked the weapon of offence at the spot. Thus here the element of suddenness is absent. Here as indicated during quarrel, P.W.1 separated the appellant and deceased and thereafter a meeting was convened to resolve the dispute and thereafter the assault took place. Further there is nothing to show that the appellant had picked the weapon of offence at the spot. Thus here the element of suddenness is absent. Here as indicated during quarrel, P.W.1 separated the appellant and deceased and thereafter a meeting was convened to resolve the dispute and thereafter the assault took place. It is not a case where assault took place during quarrel in the heat of passion. The village meeting and the sequence of events show that there was enough time gap for the appellant to reflect and the carry out the assault. Therefore it cannot be said that there was no premeditation and whatever happened, happened in an accidental manner. With regard to case of Gopinath Paraja (supra), in the said case the incident had occurred all on a sudden inside the house and the appellant had given only a single blow and the appellant had sustained only one injury. In the present case as indicated earlier element of suddenness is absent and further as deposed by P.Ws.6 and 12, the deceased had suffered three external injuries which according to both the doctors were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus the said case is factually distinguishable. Further is nowhere the settled position of law that a single factual blow can never fall within the scope of Section 300, IPC. We will discuss this point a bit later. With regard to the case of Miniaha Masuri (Supra) there, unlike the present case, the incident occurred during sudden quarrel between father of the appellant and deceased and the appellant was also a party to same. Thus the said case is also factually distinguishable. With regard to the case of Hadi Sisa (supra), it may be noted that there the death was on account of a single blow shot by arrow and no motive could be proved. In the present case as indicated earlier, there exists a number of injuries on the vital parts of the body and the doctors have clearly opined that the injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further in the present case cutting of Dimiri Tree giving rise to quarrel clearly indicates the motive for assaulting the deceased. Moreover here dying declaration has been well proved. Thus case of Hadi Sisa (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. Further in the present case cutting of Dimiri Tree giving rise to quarrel clearly indicates the motive for assaulting the deceased. Moreover here dying declaration has been well proved. Thus case of Hadi Sisa (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. No doubt in Hadi Sisa case (supra) the Doctor opined that had the patient been treated immediately he could have been saved. In such background and in the background of single blow given the appellant, this Court has concluded that it cannot be said that the appellant therein had any intention to kill. But in the present case both the doctors have stated that the injuries caused are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further in Gopinath Paraja case (Supra) and Hadi Sisa case, it appears that the attention of this Court was not drawn to the decision of Supreme Court in Dhool Sigh case(Supra) wherein it has been made clear that a single blow does not necessarily reflect lack of intention to cause death particularly when an injury is caused to a vital part of body. There the case of death was on account of cut in the neck resulting in excessive bleeding and heart failure. There though the learned trial Court held the Dhool Singh guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, the High Court altered the punishment to one under Section 304 Part-II IPC as the convict had inflicted one blow/one injury and since the doctor had not stated that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. While restoring the trial Court judgment; with regard to single blow, the Supreme Court opined as follows:- "13. In regard to the finding of the High Court that the prosecution has not even established that the respondent herein had acted with an intention of causing death of the deceased we must note that the same is based on the fact that the respondent had dealt a single blow which according to the High Court took the act of the respondent totally outside the scope of Exception I to section 300 IPC. Here again we cannot agree with the finding of the High Court. The number of injuries is irrelevant. It is not always the determining factor in ascertaining the intention. Here again we cannot agree with the finding of the High Court. The number of injuries is irrelevant. It is not always the determining factor in ascertaining the intention. It is the nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury which are the indicators of the fact whether the respondent caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. In the instant case it is true that the respondent had dealt one single blow with a sword which is a sharpedged weapon measuring about 3 ft. in length on a vital part of body namely the neck. This act of the respondent though solitary in number had severed sternoclinoid muscle, external jugular vein, internal jugular vein and common carotid artery completely leading to almost instantaneous death. Any reasonable person with any stretch of imagination can come to the conclusion that such injury on such a vital part of the body with a sharp-edged weapon would cause death. Such an injury in our opinion not only exhibits the intention of the attacker in causing the death of the victim but also the knowledge of the attacker as to the likely consequence of such attack which could be none other than causing the death of the victim. The reasoning of the High Court as to the intention and knowledge of the respondent in attacking and causing death of the victim, therefore, is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained." In the present case as indicated earlier the testimony of both the Doctors show presence of a number of injuries on vital parts of the body. With regard to the opinion of the doctor about chance of deceased surviving, if proper medical care would have been given, the Supreme Court in Dhool Singh's Case (Supra) had to say as follows:- "14. xxxx xxxx xxxx Learned counsel then submitted that according to the doctor, if proper medical care were to be provided, the injured could have survived. This, in our opinion, is a hypothetical answer given by the doctor and is not something which is applicable to the facts of this case. Even otherwise we are not in agreement with the views expressed by the doctor that with the injury like the one suffered by the victim, in the normal course he could have survived. This, in our opinion, is a hypothetical answer given by the doctor and is not something which is applicable to the facts of this case. Even otherwise we are not in agreement with the views expressed by the doctor that with the injury like the one suffered by the victim, in the normal course he could have survived. Section 300 does not contemplate such a situation of miraculous survival. xxxx xxxx xxxx In the present case as indicated earlier notwithstanding a similar statement by P.W.6, however both P.Ws 6 and 12 have opined that the injuries inflicted on the deceased can cause death in ordinary course of nature. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly while upholding the impugned judgment and sentence the JCRLA is dismissed. LCR be sent back forthwith.