6, there is no allegation of second assault. Seeing the father of the informant fall to the ground, the appellant runs away. So much for the chief, in the cross-examination, suggestions as given to him that, in fact, the deceased had fallen from a tree and hurt his head. As the neighbours had dispute, a story was formed later implicating the appellant. We will discuss this again at an appropriate stage. Thus, we have the evidence of the wife of the deceased PW 6. She also reiterates that two ladies i.e. she and mother of the appellant were quarreling when the appellant came with a stick and struck her husband who was then taken to a doctor, where after, in course of treatment, he died. At this stage we would like to refer to the evidence of the doctor PW 7, namely, Dr. R. P. Sah who performed the post mortem examination. From the post mortem report, we do not find that there is any skull injury, i.e. there is no fracture of the skull. The cause of death is blood clots in the brain caused by the head being allegedly hit by hard blunt substance. Why we are noting this is, that coupled with the fact that there is no fracture of skull and the person who was under treatment for almost 11 days and dies only because of cerebral clot. It could raise doubts whether he was really struck by a stick in such a manner as would cause brain injury and if such a brain injury was caused could he survive for such
