M. M. LAL, J. This is an appeal against a judgment and order, dated 30th August, 1978 passed by Sri Brij Mohan, the then 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ballia, by which he has convicted Gupteshwar Nai, appellant under Sec tion 302, I. P. C. and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Gupteshwar Nai, appellant and Vishesar informant are two real brothers. They were residing in a common house, situate in village Balihar, P. S Haldi, district Ballia. They were in occupation of different rooms, which opened in a common courtyard. They were barbar by profession and during the course of profession they used to go to marriages to perform certain cere monies. Virendra Nath deceased was the son of Vishesar informant. Smt. Manakia is the wife and Km. Radhika is the daugther of Gupteshwar appellant. 3. About four days prior to this occurrence there was marriage of the son of one Sri Ramnath Misra in village Balihar. In order to perform certain ceremonies, from the side of Vishesar informant his mother, who used to live with him and from the side of the appellant his daughter Km. Radhika had gone. According to the case of the prosecution on 26-6-1976. i. e. on the date of the incident, Km. Radhika, i. e. daughter of the appellant, had returned and she made a complain to her parents regarding lesser payment made to her as compared to the payment made to the mother of the informant. The same led to an altercation between the daughter of Vishesar informant on one side and wife and daughter of the appellant on the other. When the informant came from the market to his house he found that the appellant was beating his (infor mants) wife and daughter Vishesar informant asked the appellant as to why he was beating his wife and daughter on which the appellant started beating Vishesar informant as well. Soon after Virendra Nath deceased reached the spot and he tried to intervene. He gave a push to the appellant on which the appellant went to his room and brought out a spear and gave one spear blow to Virendra Nath deceased, which hit him in his chest and he fell down. This happened at about 6. 30 p. m. The hue and cry attracted witnesses to the place of occurrence. After the incident the appellant ran away. 4. This happened at about 6. 30 p. m. The hue and cry attracted witnesses to the place of occurrence. After the incident the appellant ran away. 4. Vishear informant then brought his injured son Virendra Nath to the bus station, situated at ramgarh dhala and from there he was brought upon a bus to District Hospital, Ballia, where his injuries were examined by P. W. 6 Dr. T. N. Singh, Incharge of the Emergency Ward, at 10. 15 p. m. on the same date. The said doctor found Virendra Nath having sustained the following injuries:- Punctured wound 4-1/2 cm x 1-1/2 cm X lung deep at 12 Oclock position, left side chest, 8 cm above left nipple. Air was leaking out from the wound; and margins were clean cut. The doctor found the said injuries as grievous, having been caused by a sharp edged weapon. 5. On the next morning Visbesar got the report of the incident scribed. He then went to Kotwali, Ballia to hand over the said report on 17-6-1973 at 10. 40 a. m. As this case related to P. S. Haldi, the papers were forwarded to P. S. where Haldi, the same were received on 18-6-1973 and a case under Sec tion 307, I. P. C. was registered. Virendra Nath succumbed to his injuries in the District Hospital, Ballia on 20-6- 1973 at 12. 10 p. m. whereafter this case was converted and registered into a case under Section 302, I. P. C. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution besides formal evidence, produced P. W. 2 Vishesar informant and two eye-witnesses, namely, P. W. 3 Sri Ram Misra and P. W. 4 Anirudh Misra. The post mortem examination of the dead body of Virendra Nath was conducted by the foresaid doctor T. N. Singh on 21-6-1973 at 8 p. m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Virendra Nath: - 1. Stitched wound 4-1/2 cm long over left side of chest 8 cm above the left nipple, at 12 Olock position. The upper edges of the wound have united. 2. Abrasion 1/2 cm long, linear over left cheek, 3-1/2 cm below middle of lower eye lid. 7. On an internal examination the doctor found ecchymosis in the chest and the neck. Stitched wound 4-1/2 cm long over left side of chest 8 cm above the left nipple, at 12 Olock position. The upper edges of the wound have united. 2. Abrasion 1/2 cm long, linear over left cheek, 3-1/2 cm below middle of lower eye lid. 7. On an internal examination the doctor found ecchymosis in the chest and the neck. In the inner side of the chest there was a wound in an area of 4-1/2 cm X 1 cm above the second intercostal space going in the chest cavity. The left pleura was found lacerated in an area of 4 cm x 1 cm under injury No. 1. Two pints of blood was found present in the chest cavity. The right lung was found congested and in the left lung there was a wound on the frcntal upper portion in an area of 3-1/2 cm x 1 cm x cm x 4 cm and the wound was going from the left towards the right in the upper direction. The stomach was found empty and the small intestine was found to contain gases. The large intestine contained well formed faecal matter. The gall bladder was also found full. The urinary bladder was found empty. In the opinion of Dr. T. N. Singh, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury caused to the left lung. 8. The investigation of this cases was made by P. W. 8 Rangnath Pandey, S. O. P. S. Haldi. He went to the place of occurrence, where he reached on the night of 18-6-1973. He searched for the appellant but to no avail because he had absconded. As there was no adequate arrangement for light, hence the I. O. inspected the place of occurrence on the next morning and prepared the site plan thereof. He recorded the statements of Shriram Misra P. W. 3, Anirudh P. W. 4 and others. He then wont to District Hospital, Ballia, where he reached on 19-6-1973 at 11. 45 p. m. and recorded the statement of Virendra Nath deceased under Section 101, Cr. P. C. As the appellant could not be apprehended despite an effort, hence proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C. were drawn against him. Warrants of arrest, proclaimation and attachment of property etc. were issued but even then the appellant could not be arrested. P. C. As the appellant could not be apprehended despite an effort, hence proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C. were drawn against him. Warrants of arrest, proclaimation and attachment of property etc. were issued but even then the appellant could not be arrested. Ultimately chargesheet was submitted against the appellant as an absconder on 17-8-1973. 9. The appellant on his part denied the case of the prosecution. He stated that he had gone to attend the marriage of Ram Nath Misra. As regards his absconding he stated that he had not absconded but had gone to Duthailla. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity. 10. The appellant examined one Ram Adhar Chaubey compounder to prove that on 18-6-1973 at 10 a. m. Smt. Manakiya, wife of the appellant was examined by Dr. S. N. Srivastava, who had found injuries on her persons. 11. Learned trial court has believed the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution hand has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has filed this appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have perused the records carefully. 13. P. W. 2 Vishesar informant has stated in his evidence that on the date cf the incident at about 6. 30 p. m. when he returned to his house from the market he found the appellant giving slaps to his (informants) wife and daughter and that when he tried to intervene and enquired as to why they were being beaten, the appellant started slapping him as well. He further deposed that his son Virendra Nath deceased had also reached the place of occurrence and that when he tried to intervene the appellant went to his room and after bringing a spear hurled the same at Virendra Nath, which hit him on the left side of his chest. He further deposed that after the incident the appellant ran away, P. W. 3 Sriram Misra and P. W. 4 Anirudh are neighbours of the appellant and Vishesar informant. Whereas the house of P. W. 3 Sriram Misra is situate at a distance of 30 yards, the house of P. W. 4 Anirudh is situate at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the parties. Whereas the house of P. W. 3 Sriram Misra is situate at a distance of 30 yards, the house of P. W. 4 Anirudh is situate at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the parties. Both of them have deposed that at the lime of the incident at 6/6. 30 p. m. they were at their houses and that when they heard the noise they went to the place of occurrence. They found that the appellant was beating the wife and daughter of Vishesar informant. They were stated that when Vishesar informant reached there and inquired from the appellant as to why he was beating them, the appellant started beating Vishesar informant. They have further deposed that when Virendra Nath deceased also reached the place of occurrence and he gave a push to the appellant after saying as to how he was beating his father, the appellant went to his nearby room and after bringing a spear gave one spear blow to Virendra Nath, which hit him in chest. According to them the appel lant then ran away from the place of occurrence. 14. P. W. 2 Vishesar informant, P. W. 3 Sriram Misra and P. W. 4 Anirudh have given material details of the incident. They have withstood cross-examinations well. There is no inconsistency in their evidence with regard to any material detail of the incident. Their evidence inspires confidence. P. W. 2 Vishesar informant is the real brother of the appellant. They were living in the same house. There was no previous enmity between the parties. P. W. 3 Sriram Misra and P. W. 4 Anirudh are neighbours of the informant and the appellant. They had neither any special affinity for the informant nor any enmity with the appellant. They are quite independent witnesses. In our view the learned Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance upon them. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. and that the said delay had not been properly explained. It is true that this incident had taken place on 16-6- 1973 at about 6. 30 p. m. and the F. I. R. on the other hand was lodged at P. S. Kotwali, Ballia on 17-6-1973 at 10. 40 a. m. i. e. after an interval of about sixteen hours. It is true that this incident had taken place on 16-6- 1973 at about 6. 30 p. m. and the F. I. R. on the other hand was lodged at P. S. Kotwali, Ballia on 17-6-1973 at 10. 40 a. m. i. e. after an interval of about sixteen hours. There was thus delay in making the F. I. R. However, we are of the opinion that the delay in lodging the F. I. R. has been properly explained in this case. 16. As already observed Vishesar informant and the appellant were not only real brothers but were living in the same house. There was no enmity between the parties from before. Virendra Nath had sustained a serious injury. Naturally the first priority of the father, i. e. Vishesar informant, was to take his son to the Hospital in order to provide medical aid. This is why it was stated in the F. I. R. by the informant that because the injury was quite deep, hence he had in a hurry brought his son to District Hospital. In our view when the informant was real brother of the appellant and there was no prior enmity it was a natural conduct firstly to take his seriously injured son to the Hospital for medical aid and then to go to the police station to lodge report of the incident. The delay in lodging the F. I. R. is thus properly explained and the same does not make the case of the prosecution doubtful in any manner. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged before us that the incident had taken place somewhere else in the darkness and that when no blood was found at the place of occurrence it cannot be said that this murder took place in the courtyard of the house of the informant and the appellant. In our view this argument is devoid of force. We are of the opinion that had the incident taken place somewhere else and Virendra Nath had been murdered by somebody other than the appellant, then the informant would have been the last person to implicate his own brother, i. e. the appellant, in this case instead of real assailant, especially when, as already stated, there was no previous enmity between the parties. As regards blood it is true that the I. O. did not find any blood at the place of occurrence. The absence of blood is explained by two factors; Firstly, that the I. O. could make local inspection only on the morning of 19th June,"1973, i. e. after a lapse of more than sixty hours and secondly, because the courtyard, where the blood had fallen was said to have been washed. In this respect reference may be made to the evidence of Rangnath Pandey I. O. who has deposed that when he made the Jocal inspection after three days, he found the courtyard having been washed, It may again be observed that the family of the appellant was residing in the same house and the said courtyard was common to the parties. Therefore, from the absence of blood at the place of occurrence it cannot be said that the incident had not occurred at the said place. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to us the evidence of P. W. 1 Ram Adhar Chaubey compounder and has urged that when Smt. Mankiya wife of the appellant was medically examined on 18-6-1973 and was found to have sustained injuries on her person and said injuries had not been explained by the prosecution, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be free from doubt. 19. It may be observed that Smt. Mankiya wife of the appellant was medically examined by Dr. S. N. Srivastava, M. O. I/c Barnia Dispensary on 18-6-1973 at 10 a. m. and he had found the following injuries on her persons :- 1. Deffused with severe pain on lower part of Rt. fore arm just above Rt. wrist joint-Advised-X-ray of lower part of Rt. fore arm. 2. Swelling on back of Rt. Scapula 6 "x 3". 3. Swelling 5 "x2" on back below the left scapula. 4. Swelling 6"x3" on middle of back above hip. 5. Rounded abrasion on abdomen. 20. It may be observed that all the aforesaid injuries were either minor or were on non-vital part of the body. Secondly, it has come on record that prior to this incident, there was a quarrel and altercation between Smt. Mankiya and her daughter on one hand and wife and daughter of Vishesar informant on the other, which may have resulted in some injuries to Smt. Mankiya. Secondly, it has come on record that prior to this incident, there was a quarrel and altercation between Smt. Mankiya and her daughter on one hand and wife and daughter of Vishesar informant on the other, which may have resulted in some injuries to Smt. Mankiya. Besides, we are of the opinion that the prosecution was not bound to explain the injuries on the person of Smt. Mankiya when otherwise the case of the prosecution was trustworthy and acceptable. In this respect reference is made to (1980) 2 SCC page 95 Hare Krishna Singh and others v. State of Bihar in which it was held that the prosecution is not invariably bound to explain the injuries on the accused specially when the prosecutions case is otherwise trust worthy and acceptable. In this case we have already observed that the prosecution had examined two independent witnesses, namely, P. W. 3 Sriram Misra and P. W. 4 Anirudh. They were natural witnesses. Their evidence as also the evidence of P. W. 2 Vishesar informant inspired confidence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the said three witnesses can safely be relied upon and even if it may be said that the injuries of Smt. Mankiya had not been properly explained by the prosecution, the same does not throw any doubt on the case of the prosecution. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged before us that the learned trial court should not have drawn any adverse inference against the appellant even if he was not present in the village for a few days after the incident. In our view the said argument is devoid of merit. It may be observed that in this case the appellant had run away from the village. The Investigation Agency searched for the appellant but he could not be traced. Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C. were drawn against him and warrants for his arrest. Proclaimation and attachment of his property were issued but even then the appellant could not be arrested. Ultimately the chargesheet was submitted against the appellant as an absconder on 17-8-1973. In our opinion the post incident conduct of the accused is relevant and cannot lost sight of. This view has also been taken by the Hon. Supreme Court in 1989 S. C. Cr. Ultimately the chargesheet was submitted against the appellant as an absconder on 17-8-1973. In our opinion the post incident conduct of the accused is relevant and cannot lost sight of. This view has also been taken by the Hon. Supreme Court in 1989 S. C. Cr. page 5 State of U. P. v. Anil Singh (Para 28) by stating that the post crime conduct of the accused who remained absconding for about 10 days after tlie incident could not be lost sign of. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has also urged before us that the trial court should not have attached any weight to the dying declaration made by Virendra Nath deceased in a statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. before the Investigating Officer. It may be observed that when the Investi gating Officer went to the District Hospital, Ballia on the morning of 19-6-1973 he had recorded his (deceaseds) statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. in which he named the appellant as an assailant. It may be observed that the Investigating Officer at that time had not recorded the statement of virendra Nath as a dying declaration but had recorded the same as a statement under Section. 161, Cr. P. C. The said statement lends corroboration to our view that the appellant was guilty of the murder of Virendra Nath deceased. In 1988 (4) SCC page 456 Smt. Lichhamadevi v. State of Rajasthan, the Hon. Supreme Court also took the view that such a statement of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P. C. could be used for corroboration purposes. 23. In view of the discussions made above and for the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that the case against the appellant was made out beyond any reasonable doubt and the trial court has rightly found him guilty. 24. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellant before us has been that this was not a case under Section 302, I. P. C. but was a case under Section 304, Part II, I. P. C. We find force in this argument. 25. In this case, as already observed, there was no prior enmity between the parties. Virendra Nath deceased was the son of the real brother of the appellant. This was not all. They were also residing in the same house. 25. In this case, as already observed, there was no prior enmity between the parties. Virendra Nath deceased was the son of the real brother of the appellant. This was not all. They were also residing in the same house. They were also doing the work of profession jointly so much so that they used to go to perform certain functions together in marriages. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant had given a single spear blow to Virendra Nath deceased. It it is not a case where the appellant had gone giving blow after blow to the victim till his death. The appellant had not made any attempt to give a second blow to the victim. In this case Virendral Nath deceased had died after four days i. e. on 20-6- 1973. This incident had occurred after a short quarrel between the parties. The record shows that there was some sort of provocation from the side of the victim as well. It has come on the record that before the appellant had struck the spear blow to Virendra Nath deceased, the latter had given a push to the appellant. These facts indicate that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of or to cause the aforesaid particular injury to the deceased. 26. In AIR 1982 SC page 126 Kulvant Rai v. State of Punjab where there was a short quarrel followed by an assault and the accused had given the decease one blow with a dagger that landed in epigastrium area and the victim succumbed to the injury it was held that because there was absence of prior enmity, hence there could be no intention on the part of the accused to caused injury in question. It was held that the case fell under Section 304, Part II, I. P. C. Similarly, in AIR 1983 SC page 46 Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab when there was sudden quarrel on spur of moment arising out of trivial reason on chance meeting of parties and a young man had caused a single blow by knife on the chest of the deceased causing injury, it was observed that it could not be said that there was intention to cause death or to cause particular injury imputed to the accused. Therefor, it was held that the offence fell under Section 304, Part II, I. P. C. and not under paras 1 and 2 of Section 300, I. P. C. similar view was expressed in AIR 1983 SC page 204 Jawahar Lal v State of Punjab, which was also a case of solitary blow of knife by the accused following a trivial quarrel and there was no attempt to inflict second blow. 27. In result, therefore, we are of the opinion that when in this case the parties were closely related and were living together, when there was no prior enmity of premeditation and this incident flared up all of sudden on a trivial matter and when the appellant was given some sort of provocation and further when the appellant did not try to inflict any second blow, it is a case which fell under Section 304, Part II, I. P. C. 28. Taking the facts and circumstances of this case into consideration we are of the opinion that a sentence of five years R. I. to the appellant shall meet the ends of justice. 29. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the conviction of Gupteshwar appellant is converted from Section 302, I. P. C. to Section 304, Part II, I. P. C. and his sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to five years R. I. thereunder. 30. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith the undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 304, Part II, I. P. C. Appeal partly allowed. .