ORDER A.S. Garg, J. - The appellant Sohan Singh (40 years) was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing the murder of his wife, in the area of village Pur Hiran, Police Station, Sadar, Hoshiarpur by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Balbir Kaur deceased was married with the appellant long ago. Teja Singh, PW-3, is his son while DW-1 Baljinder Kaur is his daughter. Sohan Singh suspected the fidelity of his wife. On 21.2.1985 at about 5 or 6 p.m., Balbir Kaur, her father Pritam Singh and her son Teja Singh went to the field to bring green fodder. While Balbir Kaur was cutting the fodder, the appellant allegedly armed with Kassi (spade) came there and started abusing her for not obeying his commands and inflicted two kassi blows to her which fell on her neck and left shoulder as a result of which she died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Pritam Singh, PW-2, father-in-law of the appellant-accused and Teja Singh PW-3, his son. The occurrence was reported by Pritam Singh vide his statement Ex.PD on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PD/2 was recorded at 7.30 p.m. by Vijay Singh, MHC at the instance of ASI Mukhtiar Singh, PW.5, the Investigating Officer of the case. The police went to the scene of occurrence and prepared inquest report Ex.PC and lifted blood-stained earth and a pair of chappals from near the dead body vide recovery memo Ex.PF. The Investigating Officer also prepared rough site plan Ex.PG and recorded the statements of the witnesses. 3. The dead body of the deceased was despatched to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, for post mortem examination. On 22.2.1985, Dr. Inderjit Aggarwal, PW.1 conducted autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries :- 1) A lacerated wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep over the left side of chin, oblique in direction and 0.5 cm from the midline. 2) A lacerated wound 12.5 cm x 1 to 4.5 cm x bone deep over the left side of neck passing upwards and backwards towards the side of neck in its middle, 5 cm below the ear. 2) A lacerated wound 12.5 cm x 1 to 4.5 cm x bone deep over the left side of neck passing upwards and backwards towards the side of neck in its middle, 5 cm below the ear. Wound was more deeper on its lateral aspect. Underlying subcutaneous tissue, deep cervical fascia, submandle glands, sterno-mastoid muscle, carortid arteries and juglar vein were cut. 3) A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.4 cm over the inner aspect of lower one- third portion of the left forearm with abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm in continuation. Ex.PA is the carbon copy of the post mortem report. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 2 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 4. The appellant could not be tried for 10 years after the occurrence since he was absconding and was declared as a Proclaimed Offender. He was ultimately arrested on 31.1.1995 and thereafter on the testimony of Pritam Singh, his father-in-law and his son Teja Singh, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. In appeal the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has been that Pritam Singh, PW.2, belonged to village Pandori Rukman and he had no occasion to come to the village of the appellant and, therefore, he had been introduced as a witness later on. The argument as such does not appear to be attractive in the sense that the occurrence has taken place around 6 p.m. on 21.2.1985 and the FIr is recorded by the Investigation Officer by 7.10 p.m. as well as the special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate by 8.10 p.m., the same day. In a case of such a prompt FIR, it cannot be said that the presence of Pritam Singh had to be procured to make out a false case against the appellant. Pritam Singh would not like that his son-in-law would be involved in a false murder case if his daughter had been murdered by any body else. The father-in-law visited the son-in-laws house a day earlier to the occurrence. Therefore, Pritam Singh, PW.2 is not a chance witness but he came in due course to meet his daughter. He was already aware that Sohan Sigh appellant was not keeping his daughter in cordial atmosphere. The father-in-law visited the son-in-laws house a day earlier to the occurrence. Therefore, Pritam Singh, PW.2 is not a chance witness but he came in due course to meet his daughter. He was already aware that Sohan Sigh appellant was not keeping his daughter in cordial atmosphere. So he might have come to take care of her. Besides this Pritam Singhs presence was not required at all since Teja Singh, PW.3, son of the appellant himself was present on the scene of occurrence and even after 10 years of the occurrence he has deposed on oath and did not forget that his father had killed his mother, though a young boy has made his statement like a matured person. He has stated in cross-examination that whatever had to happen, has already happened and his father may be acquitted so that he is able to live with him in the village of their own, rather than to live in the village of his maternal grandfather. Teja Singh has fully supported the version that his mother was given two kassi blows by his father and she died as a result thereof but still he was of the view that his father may be let off. In the face of the evidence of the son of the appellant himself no further evidence is needed to hold the appellant guilty of the offence he has committed. So in such circumstances the version of the appellant-accused mentioned in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that his father-in-law got him involved in the false case because of some annoyance, is totally misplaced. Version of Baljinder Kaur, DW.1, daughter of the appellant that her mother was a bad character and version of Jagir Singh, DW.2 that the deceased had illicit intimacy with a person cannot help the appellant in any way to exonerate him from his culpability of having committed the act which took the life of his own wife. After committing the murder of his wife, the appellant fled away and remained a Proclaimed Offender for not less than 10 years. 6. The learned counsel urged that since only two blows were given on the person of the deceased do not reflect that he intended to cause her death. After committing the murder of his wife, the appellant fled away and remained a Proclaimed Offender for not less than 10 years. 6. The learned counsel urged that since only two blows were given on the person of the deceased do not reflect that he intended to cause her death. Such an argument is absolutely not applicable in the case when the appellant had a motive and a great annoyance with his wife that he could not obviously digest the rumour that his wife had illicit connection and he repeatedly gave the Kassi blows, a sharp edged weapon. As such the offence could not be diluted to any lighter offence. 7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge is well based. Hence the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.