The intent behind the injuries inflicted is critical in determining the charge under IPC, with circumstantial evidence shifting some burden to the accused regarding explanations.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in S.T.No.25/2010 convicting the accused / appellant under S.302, S.177 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and RI for six months, fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Pramila Gond, wife of the accused / appellant. It is alleged that in the night intervening 3/4th February, 2010 the accused / appellant had a quarrel with the deceased and he assaulted her with fist blows and wooden log which resulted in her death. After her death, merg intimation Ex.P / 13 was lodged by the appellant informing the police that Pramila died on account of fall from the cot. After lodging merg, Inquest Ex.P / 2 was performed over the body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted by PW - 3 Dr. Indra Kumar Som vide Ex.P / 11 on 5.2.2010. After receiving PM report and merg enquiry, FIR (Ex.P / 15) was registered against the accused / appellant on 6.2.2010 under S.302 and S.177 of IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant under S.302 & S.177 of IPC and accordingly charges were framed.

3. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under S.313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant as mentioned in para - 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
(i) even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, at best the accused / appellant is liable to be convicted under S.304 Part - II of IPC because he had no intention to cause death of the deceased, it was a simple quarrel between the couple in which it appears that the appellant had beaten the deceased which unfortunately resulted in her death.
(ii) that though the wooden log has been seized from the appellant but it has been opined by the doctor that the injuries suffered by the deceased could not have been caused by the said weapon.
(iii) that the appellant is in jail since 7.2.2010 and therefore, after converting his conviction into S.304 Part - II his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that number of injuries were caused by the appellant to the deceased including fracture of various ribs and temporal bone. He submits that according to the autopsy surgeon, the death was homicidal in nature and considering the act of the appellant, his conviction under S.302 and S.177 of IPC is strictly In accordance with law.

7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

8. PW - 1 Rukham Gond, is a witness of inquest Ex.P / 2. He has though been declared hostile but admitted his signature on the documents. PW - 2 Birbal Singh, village Kotwar, is also a witness to the inquest. Though he has been declared hostile but has admitted his signature on the documents. In para - 6 he has stated that when he enquired from the daughter of the accused / appellant namely Renuka about the death of her mother, she informed him that her mother Pramila died after being severely beaten by the appellant and then only he came to know that a