JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. This appeal is at the instance of accused convict and is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.10.2014, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2014, whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees five thousand with default sentence of one year imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that at around 11 PM on 13.10.2013, he killed complainant's elder brother Narayan Singh Bohra @ Kannu by administering stone blows on his head. 3. In order to bring home the guilt, prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. PW1 Bhuwan Singh Bohra is an eyewitness, complainant and the younger brother of deceased. PW2 Hariom Sethi, who was accompanying PW1 in the night of occurrence, is also an eyewitness. PW3 Lokendra Singh came subsequently at the spot after hearing about the incident. PW4 is Head Constable Hemant Kumar, who prepared the chick FIR. PW5 Naveen Bisht has been examined to prove that few days prior to the incident, appellant had picked up a fight with the deceased. PW6 is Dr. Deepak Chandra Gahtori, who conducted the autopsy and issued the post-mortem report. PW7, PW8 and PW9 are police officers who were involved in investigation of the crime. 4. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he stated that he had fight with the deceased, who was conspiring to kill him. Accused admitted that the report was rightly lodged and charge sheet was rightly submitted. 5. The case of the prosecution primarily rests on the evidence of two eyewitnesses, PW1 Bhuwan Singh Bohra and PW2 Hariom Sethi. Informant PW1 has stated in his examination-in-chief as under: "The occurrence is of 13.10.2013. Occurrence is of 11 o'clock in the night, when I along with Hariom Sethi left the Village Panchayat House on a motorcycle and was going to purchase the articles from Tanakpur Market. Informant PW1 has stated in his examination-in-chief as under: "The occurrence is of 13.10.2013. Occurrence is of 11 o'clock in the night, when I along with Hariom Sethi left the Village Panchayat House on a motorcycle and was going to purchase the articles from Tanakpur Market. When we reached 40-45 metres ahead of the village, then we saw in the light of electric poles and light of shops that Anand Ram @ Anni Ram, the accused present in the Court, had made my brother Narayan Singh Bohra fell down on the road in front of church gate and he was sitting over his abdomen and was administering stone blows on his head. We stopped and tried to rescue Narayan, then accused also chased to assault us. Then we ran a bit ahead. We again mustered courage and chased the accused and went inside the church gate to apprehend the accused, however, he could not be apprehended. Then we both returned to the place of occurrence and saw that my brother was throbbing. Meanwhile, he died within ten minutes. Thereafter Hariom Sethi went to village and brought the villagers at the spot and we all guarded the place of occurrence throughout night and lit the gaslight and fire. I got the report of this incident scribed by a villager Suraj Nath Goswami at 5 o'clock in the next day morning i.e. 14.10.2013. He wrote exactly the same which I dictated and I read the report, put the signature and the scribe Suraj Nath also put his signature and the same is Paper No. 3Ka/2 on the record. I identify my signature and the signature of the scribe Suraj Nath. It is marked as Exb. Ka-1. I, Suraj Nath and Hariom Sethi carried the report to the Tanakpur Police Station and got registered the case. Thereafter Inspector along with us came at the spot. The dead body was lying there. When the Inspector made inspection at the place of occurrence, then he found the bloodstained stone, which was sealed in a white clothe under my signature and signature of Naresh Upreti and also of the police personnel on the said clothe. Inspector prepared the memo of recovery of stone and obtained signature of the aforesaid two persons and the police personnel. Inspector prepared the memo of recovery of stone and obtained signature of the aforesaid two persons and the police personnel. On seeing the Paper No. 5Ka/9, memo of bloodstained stone, used in the crime, the witness said this very memo was prepared by the Inspector at the spot and I identify my signature and that of other witnesses. Inspector had prepared the inquest report of deceased Narayan Singh Bohra @ Kannu S/o Bahadur Singh at the spot. Bahadur Singh was also known as Veer Singh. Inquest report of the deceased is Paper No. 5Ka/23 on the record and the witness identified his signature as well as signatures of witnesses Hariom Sethi, Naresh Upreti, Hem Kumar Pacholi and Lokendra Singh thereon. Inspector had enquired about the incident from me. When the bundle containing stone was opened before the court and shown to the witness, then he said that I had seen the accused assaulting the deceased with this very stone and Inspector had recovered this very stone and had sealed it and I and Naresh Upreti and the police personnel had put signature on this. Stone (used in the crime) is marked as material Exb.-1 and polythene is marked as material Exb.-2 and the white clothe is marked as material Exh.-3." 6. As is evident, PW1 has corroborated the prosecution story and gave the description of the incident in examination-in-chief and also identified the stone with which the deceased was assaulted. Despite searching lengthy cross-examination, his statement in-chief could not be demolished. 7. PW2 Hariom Sethi, who is also an eyewitness of the incident, has corroborated the statement of PW1. This witness has also identified the stone with which the accused had assaulted the deceased and which was recovered from the place of occurrence. PW2 was cross-examined at length, but his statement in-chief could not be demolished. 8. PW3 Lokendra Singh has proved that PW1 and PW2 had gone at around 11 o'clock in the night of incident to fetch the articles for Ramleela. He is also a witness of inquest. This witness has identified the bloodstained pant of the accused appellant which was recovered from him after his arrest at around 8 o'clock in the morning of 14.10.2013. 9. PW5 Naveen Bisht has proved that at around 10-11 PM on 9.10.2013, i.e. four days prior to the incident, accused and deceased were quarrelling in front of Ramleela Gate. This witness has identified the bloodstained pant of the accused appellant which was recovered from him after his arrest at around 8 o'clock in the morning of 14.10.2013. 9. PW5 Naveen Bisht has proved that at around 10-11 PM on 9.10.2013, i.e. four days prior to the incident, accused and deceased were quarrelling in front of Ramleela Gate. Both had held each other by collar and were scuffling. He and one Malkhan Singh of the village intervened and thereafter accused left the spot holding out a threat to kill the deceased. 10. PW6 Dr. Deepak Chand Gahtori has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He found following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: "Crushed injury extended from root of nose to occipital region of head. Crushed brain matter collected in polythene bag along with dead body. Crushed eyes and ears seen." 11. PW6 has stated that the deceased died due to coma as a result of haemorrhage and head injury. This witness has stated that the kind of injuries suffered by the deceased can be sustained if multiple stone blows are administered on the head. 12. Accused while responding to the prosecution evidence, put to him in the form of questions under Section 313 CrPC, admitted that he had fight with the deceased; deceased was conspiring to kill him; report was rightly lodged; charge sheet was rightly filed; he was rightly prosecuted and the prosecution witnesses gave correct statements. Though the answer given by the accused under Section 313 CrPC is not to be considered as a piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2) CrPC, but the same can be used to appreciate the prosecution evidence and could be taken in aid to substantiate the case of the prosecution. 13. In fine, cumulative reading of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW5 coupled with the evidence of PW6 establishes beyond doubt the culpability of the accused in the offence. Thus we find that the manner of causing the death was deliberate, premeditated and brutal and was consistent only with the intention to cause death. Medical evidence is also conclusive that the deceased died on account of stone blows. Thus we find that the manner of causing the death was deliberate, premeditated and brutal and was consistent only with the intention to cause death. Medical evidence is also conclusive that the deceased died on account of stone blows. Therefore, having regard to the statement of the doctor, we are satisfied that the deceased met his death as a result of coma caused by haemorrhage in the brain consequent upon the injury on the head. 14. Finally, insofar as the contention of learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant that, at the most, the case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC, we are unable to uphold this argument. Considering the nature of weapon used by the accused (heavy stone) and the vital part of the body (head) of the deceased chosen by him, the manner in which the head was smashed insomuch as the brain matter of deceased had to be collected in a polythene bag and deceased died at the spot within minutes of the assault, we have no hesitation in concluding that the accused appellant intended to cause death and otherwise also had knowledge that these injuries would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the circumstances, Trial Court was right in holding that the case was covered by Section 302 IPC. 15. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order and the same is not liable to be disturbed. Accordingly, we affirm the impugned judgment and order and uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the convict appellant. Convict appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence.