ORDER : RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge by the State of Himachal Pradesh is to a judgment of the High Court by which the conviction of the respondent-accused has been altered from Section 302 Indian Penal Code ("IPC") to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. Accordingly, the sentence has been modified to the period undergone which is about six years. 3. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the relevant materials placed on record. There are three eye-witnesses to the occurrence, i.e., PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased whereas PW-2 and PW-6 are daughters-in-law. 4. The prosecution case appears to be that the deceased, who is the uncle of the accused, is to complain about the conduct of the accused, particularly in relation to his wife and, therefore, the accused had carried a grudge against the deceased leading to the incident in question. 5. Motive apart, the three eye-witnesses have clearly testified the assault on the head of the deceased by the accused with a danda. PW-12, who carried out the postmortem, corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses and further the said witness (Doctor) has specifically deposed that there was a fracture of the skull and he found brain matter oozing out from the wound. 6. The High Court took the view that the accused had carried a danda in one hand and a Drat (sharp instrument) in the other hand and the fact the he had used the danda and not the sharp weapon was ample testimony of the fact that he had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased. 7. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court. Injuries on the skull with a danda resulting in a fracture with brain matter oozing out of the wound has been found by PW-12 in the course of the postmortem. This would show that the ingredients necessary to attract the offence under Section 302 IPC are present in the instant case. A person assaulting another with a wooden danda on the head with such force that the same has resulted in a fracture enabling brain matter to come out must be understood to have knowledge, if not the intention, that injuries caused by him are sufficient in the normal course to cause death. A person assaulting another with a wooden danda on the head with such force that the same has resulted in a fracture enabling brain matter to come out must be understood to have knowledge, if not the intention, that injuries caused by him are sufficient in the normal course to cause death. If that be so, we will have no occasion to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the offence committed is one under Section 304 Part II IPC. We, therefore, interfere with the order of the High Court and restore the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court. The accused respondent who is currently on bail will surrender before the learned trial court to serve out the sentence, as awarded, forthwith, failing which he will be taken into custody. 8. The appeals are allowed in the above terms and the orders of the High Court are set aside. Appeals allowed.