Important Point—Even if intention of accused is limited to infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and did not extend to intention of causing death, offence would be murder.

1. The instant cr. appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Munna Lal @ Munna under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 12.6.2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases - cum - Addl. Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 54/2005 whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and following sentence was passed against him:

"Under Section 302 IPC -- Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months SI.

Under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.-- One year RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months SI."

2. As per brief facts of the case on 22.4.2004 the complainant PW-9 Dharm Singh, the then Station Master, Merta Road submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) at Police Station Merta Road alleging therein that Sumer Singh Gujar Senior Clerk was on duty on 22.4.2004 from 20 hours to 8 hours. In the night at about 1.00 am Sumer Singh while taking two water bottles from running room coming back, at that time, the complainant heard cry of Sumer Singh The complainant Dharm Singh went out and saw that Sumer Singh coming towards office of station master and blood was coming out from his chest. The injured Sumer Singh told that Munna Lal inflicted knife blow upon his chest. After saying so, Sumer Singh fell down and became unconscious. The complainant called other railway employees and gave information of inclined to the police so also, took Sumer Singh, injured to the hospital, but he was declared dead in the hospital.

3. Upon aforesaid written complaint (Ex. P/1), the SHO Police Station GRP, Merta registered the FIR No. 24/2004 (Ex. P/13) and commenced investigation. It emerges from the fact that after incident, accused appellant absconded, therefore, not arrested for more than one year and was arrested on 4.6.2005 at 5.00 pm in presence of two witnesses Basant Sharma and Rajendra Prasad. After arrest, during investigation, as per his information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the accused appellant, one knife was recovered vide Ex. P/23 on 9.6.2005 at 1.00 pm in presence of two witnesses Chena Ram and Basant Kumar. The recovered knife was sealed on spot and mark 'A1' was given upon sealed article, two other articles were also recovered from the place of occurrence and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Jodhpur from where case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Merta for trial.

4. The trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act against the accused appellant after providing an opportunity of hearing, but accused appellant denied the charge levelled against him and prayed for trial.

5. In the trial, statements of 22 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 35 documents were exhibited from prosecution side. Thereafter, the statement of the accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which accused appellant denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and said that on the date of occurrence went out of town to attend marriage of daughters of Hema Ram and Satyanarayan and denied the allegation for committed offence of murder. In defence, statements of four defence witnesses namely DW-1 Joga Ram, DW-2 Rambali, DW-3 Prakash Chandra and DW-4 Raju Ram were recorded and 9 documents were exhibited from defence side.

6. The learned trial court after recording evidence, finally heard the arguments and passed the impugned judgment dated 12.6.2006 whereby accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and the sentence aforesaid was inflicted upon him.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not challenging the inci