JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - The appellant, Raj Daler @ Kala son of Jit Singh son of Santa Singh has been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Patiala by judgment dated 16.1.1996. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further R.I. for one year. The appeal has been filed through jail. Mr. Ajay Lamba, Advocate has been appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 2. According to the prosecution, the appellant, deceased-Parshotam Chand and one Shivalik alias Bablu were the servants of Mr. G.S. Jeji. All the three servants were residing adjacent to the main residential house of Mr. Jeji. The deceased worked in the kitchen of Mr. Jeji for the past 14/15 years, the appellant for about three years and Bablu for about 5 to 6 years. On 20.2.1994, all the three servants went to their room and retired for the night. The deceased used to come to the Kothi of Mr. Jeji by about 7 a.m. every morning to prepare tea etc. On 21.2.1994, the deceased did not come to the house of Mr. Jeji till 8 a.m. Mr. Jeji, therefore, went to call him from the servant quarter. When he reached the room, he saw Parshotam (the deceased) lying on the cot. There were injuries on his neck caused by sharp edged weapon. Blood was oozing from the wounds. Kala and Bablu were nowhere to be seen. Mr. Jeji proceeded to the Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala. On the way he met S.I. Kaka Singh (PW-4) at Y.P.S. Chowk. Mr. Jeji gave the statement Ex. PA to SI Kaka Singh. Statement was read over and explained to Mr. Jeji. It was signed by Mr. Jeji in token of its correctness and attested by SI Kaka Singh. On the basis of this statement, FIR No. 25 of 21.2.1994 was registered at 11 a.m. at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. Special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 3 p.m. Police Party headed by SI Kaka Singh and complainant Mr. Jeji came to the scene of the crime. Dead-body of Parshotam Chand was lying inside the Servant quarter. Thanedar prepared the inquest report, Ex.PJ on the dead-body of Parshotam Chand in the present of Mr. Gurjit Singh Jeji and Maljiat Singh. Special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 3 p.m. Police Party headed by SI Kaka Singh and complainant Mr. Jeji came to the scene of the crime. Dead-body of Parshotam Chand was lying inside the Servant quarter. Thanedar prepared the inquest report, Ex.PJ on the dead-body of Parshotam Chand in the present of Mr. Gurjit Singh Jeji and Maljiat Singh. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared. Statements of witnesses were also recorded including that of Bablu. After post-mortem examination ASI Anant Ram and Constable Manjit Singh produced blood stained clothes of the deceased. They were taken into possession by recovery memo Ex. PM. The appellant was arrested on 22.2.1994. He was interrogated about the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He made a disclosure statement that he had concealed the Kulhari by throwing it inside the well near the Gobar Gas Plant installed at the bungalow of Mr. Jeji. He further stated that he could get it recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. His disclosure statement, Ex.PO was recorded. On the showing of the appellant, Kulhari Ex.P3 was recovered. During the course of investigation, one dari and khes Exs. P-1 and P-2 were also taken into possession by the I.O. These were kept in a sealed parcel with the MHC for safe custody. 3. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Harish Tuli, PW-2 on 21.2.1994 on dead- body of Parshotam Chand, deceased. The doctor found as many as four injuries on the deceased which are fully described in the post-mortem report Ex.PH. According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature, They were sufficient to cause in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between the death and post-mortem was 24 hours. The sealed parcel of blood stained dari was sent to the Office of Chemical Examiner. Blood was found on these articles. The opinion of the doctor had been produced as report Ex.PT and report Ex. PU. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned. After due trial, the appellant was challaned. After due trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as notice above. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Mr. The opinion of the doctor had been produced as report Ex.PT and report Ex. PU. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned. After due trial, the appellant was challaned. After due trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as notice above. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Mr. G.S. Jeji PW-1, Shivalik alias Bablu PW2, Dr. Harish Tuli, and ASI Kaka Singh, PW4. Witness Nirbal Singh was given up by the prosecution as having been won over. The remaining witnesses were given up as unnecessary. Public Prosecutor tendered into evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. All the incriminating circumstances against the appellant were put to him. He denied the version of the prosecution and stated as follows :- "I am innocent. I did not commit any murder. I have been falsely implicated in this case due to suspicion and in connivance with the Police and Gurjit Singh Jeji. Bablu was deposed at the instance of Gurjit Singh Jeji." 5. The appellant, however, chose not to lead any evidence in defence. 6. Mr. Ajay Lamba, Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to produce any evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. According to the learned counsel, the only eye- witness Bablu cannot be relied upon. The recovery of the murder weapon i.e. Kulhari is highly suspect. Even otherwise, the Kulhari was never sent for Forensic Examination for blood stains. No motive has been put forward by the prosecution for the murder of the deceased by the appellant. The medical evidence and the ocular evidence are not consistent. Therefore, the presence of Bablu at the scene of the crime is unlikely. According to the learned counsel, it would be unsafe to record conviction on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also perused the record of the case. 8. PW1 Gurjit Singh Jeji was the employer of the deceased, appellant and Bablu. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by Mr. Jeji. He has clearly stated that the deceased used to commence work at his residence at about 7 a.m. every morning. 8. PW1 Gurjit Singh Jeji was the employer of the deceased, appellant and Bablu. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by Mr. Jeji. He has clearly stated that the deceased used to commence work at his residence at about 7 a.m. every morning. Since he did not report for work till 8 a.m. on 21.2.1994, Mr. Jeji went looking for him in the servant quarter. There he saw the dead-body of the deceased, with blood oozing out of the wounds which had apparently been caused by a sharp edged weapon. He also noticed that although all the three servants had retired to the servant quarter together the night before, but appellant and Bablu were not present in the morning. He informed the police that he suspected that the deceased had been done to death by the appellant as there was constant strain between the two. The appellant did not like the deceased who worked conscientiously for his employer. In cross- examination, the evidence of this witness could not be shaken. There is no reason put forward by the counsel for the appellant as to why Mr. Jeji would falsely implicate the appellant in the murder of one of his servants. Story put forward by Mr. Jeji finds support from the evidence of Bablu. According to this witness, after finishing work on the 20th of February 1994, all the three servants went to attend a wedding party. They came back at about 11/12 p.m. The appellant and the deceased had been quarrelling with each other. The appellant picked up a kulhari which was lying in the servant room and assaulted the deceased with it. According to this witness, the appellant hit the deceased with the Kulhari repeatedly, on the base of the left shoulder. Thereafter he ran away. Bablu saw Parshotam Chand lying dead and ran away out of fear of the appellant. He stated that he slept in the house where they had gone to attend the marriage. He came back on the next day around noon time. In cross-examination, he affirms his employment with Mr. Gurjit Singh Jeji with a salary of about Rs. 500-600 per month. He gives further details of the marriage party which was attended by the three servants. They had attended the marriage of the son of one Ram at Kheri Road. He came back on the next day around noon time. In cross-examination, he affirms his employment with Mr. Gurjit Singh Jeji with a salary of about Rs. 500-600 per month. He gives further details of the marriage party which was attended by the three servants. They had attended the marriage of the son of one Ram at Kheri Road. Ram was also working as a Cook in a kothi owned by one Mithu. He further stated that all the three had taken two pegs of liquor each. They had the food at 9 p.m. Thereafter, they spent some time talking and enjoying themselves. However, when they came back to the servant quarter, the appellant and the deceased had just quarrelled with each other. He stated that he does not know as to what was the bone of contention between the two. However, they exchanged hot words for about 5/7 minutes. He further stated that he did not go to Mr. Jeji to inform about the death out of fear of the appellant. In fact he kept mum and did not inform anybody. He did not make a hue and cry about the murder. However, he reiterates that the deceased and the appellant were standing close to him when they were exchanging hot words. At the time of the assault by the appellant on the deceased, he was standing near the door of the room. He did not inform anybody about the murder till his statement was taken at noon time. He states that Hem Bagh Colony is thickly populated area. There were kothis around the residence of Mr. Jeji. He had slept at Kothi which is at a distance of 100 yards from the place where the murder had taken place. He also did not inform the inmates of the kothi or the persons who had collected at the time of marriage ceremony. 9. Having considered the entire matter, we find that the evidence given by Bablu cannot be discarded. When people are faced with extremely violent events, they react in different manners. In another case, a person may become totally dumb-founded and withdraw within himself. At the time when the perpetrator of a violent crime is known to the eye-witness, understandably the witness may keep totally quiet out of fear. This is precisely what happened to Bablu. When people are faced with extremely violent events, they react in different manners. In another case, a person may become totally dumb-founded and withdraw within himself. At the time when the perpetrator of a violent crime is known to the eye-witness, understandably the witness may keep totally quiet out of fear. This is precisely what happened to Bablu. He had seen one of the co-workers committing the murder of the other co-worker. He also knew that the appellant was aware that he had seen the whole incident. It is not possible to discard the testimony of Bablu simply because he did not inform any other person about the incident before making the statement to the Police. The sequences of events as narrated by Bablu bears testimony to the naturalness of the statement. 10. Mr. Lamba had laid much stress on the fact that there is a divergence between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. We are unable to see any inconsistency in the evidence. Dr. Tuli PW3 has described the injuries as follows :- "1. An incised wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm; 2 cm below left ear on the left side of the neck. Structures underneath were cut. 2. An incised stab wound 1.75 cm x 1/2 cm at the base of the neck on the left side. It was 6 cm away from midline. On dissection underneath structures were damaged. 3. An incised stab wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the left side of the neck in its middle. It was 3 cm deep. 4. An incised stab would 3/4 cm x 1/2 cm, 2 cm below injury No. 3. It was 2 cm deep." 11. He had quite categorically stated that cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage, due to multiple injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He had also stated that the probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between the death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. In the examination-in-chief, he stated the injuries No. 1 and 2 are possible with the weapon Kulhari Ex.P3. However, injuries No. 3 and 4 are not possible with this weapon. However, in cross-examination, he stated that injuries No. 1 to 4 were not caused by Kulhari. In the examination-in-chief, he stated the injuries No. 1 and 2 are possible with the weapon Kulhari Ex.P3. However, injuries No. 3 and 4 are not possible with this weapon. However, in cross-examination, he stated that injuries No. 1 to 4 were not caused by Kulhari. Would this be sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case is the significant question which arises at this stage. Injury No. 1 is an incised wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm. This injury could well be caused by the sharp edged corner of the Kulhari. When this evidence is viewed in conjunction with the oral evidence of PW1, we find no difficulty in accepting the case put forward by the prosecution. In order to discard the entire prosecution story, this Court would have to ignore entirely the recovery of the weapon on the basis of disclosure statement. Mr. Lamba has submitted that the Kulhari recovered could not be the weapon of offence as it did not contain any blood stain on the same. But this argument is of no effect since the Kulhari had been thrown into a well of Gobar Gas Plant. Naturally, therefore, there were no blood stains on the kulhari when the same was recovered. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He repeatedly assaulted the deceased with the weapon of offence causing multiple incised injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the normal course. This would squarely bring the offence within the ambit of Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 12. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.