Kemkar, J. -- By this appeal, the appellant is assailing the judgment dated 14.10.1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 44/88, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, whereby he has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The trial Court has, however, acquitted the co-accused persons, namely, Chotelal, Pannalal and Chitanand.

According to the prosecution, on 19:1.1988, at about 1.30 p.m. one Bhagwat Prasad while going towards village Panikabandha alongwith Vijay Singh (PW 2), Gopal and Rama heard the sound of cutting of a tree from forest near village Titaria. Bhagwat Prasad was a forest Guard. When he went to the place from where the sound was coming, he saw appellant Shubhkaran and Chitanand cutting a tree by their axes. Bhagwat Prasad asked then not to cut the tree and insisted for handing over their axes to him. Both of them after initial protest handed over their axes to Bhagwat Prasad. Vijay Singh (PW 2) held the axe of Shubhkaran. Thereafter, all' of them left the place and as they reached village Titaria, Shubhkaran suddenly snatched the axe from Vijay Singh (PW 2). At that time Dadna, Chotelal and Pannalal also reached that place. Bhagwat Prasad demanded the axe from Shubhkaran and stated that he would seize the wood also. At that juncture Shubhkaran suddenly inflicted a blow from the blunt side of the axe on the forehead of Bhagwat Prasad as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. He did on the way while being carried to the hospital. Vijay Kumar lodged the FIR (Ex. P-l) at Police Station Jiyavan. Dr. R.K. Shrivastav (PW 5) conducted the Post-mortem of the deceased Bhagwat Prasad. He in his report (Ex. P-6) gave opinion that Bhagwat Prasad died due to solitary forehead injury. After investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and other acquitted co-accussed, persons, namely, Chotelal, Pannalal and Chitanand.

The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of Vijay Singh (PW 2). Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of solitary eye-witness. In the alternative, he has argued that the appellant should not have been convicted under section 302 of the IPC as only an offence under section 304 Part II was made out against him even as per the allegations of the prosecution.

We have carefully considered the evidence of Vijay Singh (PW 2). He, in his evidence has deposed that while he was proceeding towards village Bandha heard the sound of cutting of a tree. Bhagwat Prasad (deceased) and he went to the place and saw the appellant Shubhkaran and Chitanand cutting a tree by their axes. Bhagwat Prasad asked them not to cut the tree and insisted for handing over their axes to him. He held the axe given by the appellant. Thereafter, all of them when reached the village, Shubhkaran snatched the axe from him. Unable to accept this act, Bhagwat Prasad demanded the axe from Shubhkaran and further threatened that he would seize the wood also. At that point of time, the appellant inflicted an axe blow from the blunt side on the forehead of the Bhagwat Prasad. This evidence of Vijay Singh is corroborated by the FIR (Ex. P-l) lodged by him and also by the medical evidence. Quite apart from the above, there is nothing on record to disbelieve this independent eye-witness Vijay Singh (PW 2) who is not related to the deceased Bhagwat Prasad. Thus, the trial Court has rightly believed the evidence of eye-witness, Vijay Singh (PW 2) and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant alone was responsible for the death of Bhagwat Prasad.

The appellant appears to be a tribal. He felt annoyed and harassed on being restrained by the deceased from cutting the tree and subsequent seizure of axe. It therefore, seems that he suddenly thought of beating Bhagwat Prasad, in pursuance of which he inflicted a solitary blo