Judgment PRITAM PAL, J. 1. This appeal by Balwinder Singh is directed against the judgment and order dated November 8, 2001, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment under Sec.302 of the indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year, by learned Additional Sessions judge, Gurdaspur. 2. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus : smt. Jaspal Kaur (25 years), sister of PW-2 Dalwinder Singh (complainant) was married to appellant Balwinder Singh 13-14 months prior to the date of occurrence in village Dalle Chak, District Gurdaspur. Appellant Balwinder Singh used to reside in a house built in his fields, whereas, his other brothers, namely, Gulzar Singh and Beer Singh were residing in the old houses built in the village. A month prior to the date of occurrence, Jaspal Kaur had come to her parental village - Raheeman Baad and told her brother Dalvinder Singh (PW-2) that she was beaten by her husband, who asked her to bring a Television and Scooter from her parents. 3. Thereupon, complainant Dalvinder Singh alongwith his sister Jaspal Kaur went to her matrimonial home and assured the appellant that a Television would be sent and scooter would be arranged for him after the harvesting of his rabi crop. While giving the said assurance, he left his sister at the residence of the appellant and advised the appellant not to beat her sister. Thereafter, a Television set was sent to the appellant 15 days prior to the occurrence. 4. It was on 8.1.1995 at 8.00 PM that Dalvinder Singh (complainant) alongwith his cousin Satpal Singh (PW-3) had come to meet jaspal Kaur and her husband Balwinder Singh (appellant ). In the night time, after taking their meals, they had gone to sleep in a separate room, whereas, Jaspal Kaur and appellant Balwinder Singh slept in a separate adjoining room. Then, at about 11.00 PM, the complainant heard shriek from the adjoining room. Thereupon, they got up and peeped through a window inside the room and saw that Jaspal Kaur was lying on a cot. Gulzar Singh (since dead), brother of the appellant, was seen holding her from her legs, whereas, appellant Balwinder Singh was seen strangulating her by putting a chunni around her neck. Thereupon, they got up and peeped through a window inside the room and saw that Jaspal Kaur was lying on a cot. Gulzar Singh (since dead), brother of the appellant, was seen holding her from her legs, whereas, appellant Balwinder Singh was seen strangulating her by putting a chunni around her neck. On seeing so, complainant dalvinder Singh (PW-2) and Satpal Singh (PW-3) raised a raula and knocked at the door, whereupon the appellant and his brother Gulzar Singh ran away by opening the other door of the room. After that, the complainant and Satpal Singh entered the room from the other door and untied the knot of chunni and Jaspal Kaur was found dead. As it was night time, they both remained present in the said room. In the morning, leaving satpal Singh (PW-3) to guard the dead-body, Dalvinder Singh (complainant), went to inform his relatives and then he met the Police at about 10.30 AM on 9.1.1995 in the area of Kala Afgana, where he made his statement Ex. PE, in the above narration of facts. 5. Si Govinder Singh (PW-8) made his endorsement Ex. PE/1 and then sent the statement of the complainant to Police Station, Fatehgarh churian where a formal FIR Ex. PE/2 was recorded by SI Hakumat Rai under Sec.304-B/498-A read with Sec.34 IPC at 11.30 AM on 9.1.1995. SI Govinder Singh took the investigation of this case in his hand. He rushed to the place of occurrence along with the complainant. There, he prepared inquest report Ex. PD and recorded the statements of pws. He took into possession one Chunni (Ex. P/1) vide memo Ex. PJ attested by Satpal Singh and ASI Gurbachan Singh and then sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination. At the spot, he also prepared rough site-plan Ex. PS of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes in his hand. On return to the Police Station, he deposited the case property with the MHC with seals intact. 6. On 10.1.1995, SI Govinder Singh took into possession the clothes of Jaspal Kaur (deceased) vide memo Ex. PT. It was on 17.1.1995 that appellant Balwinder Singh and accused Gulzar Singh (since deceased)were arrested. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted to ASI Tilak Raj (PW-10 ). 6. On 10.1.1995, SI Govinder Singh took into possession the clothes of Jaspal Kaur (deceased) vide memo Ex. PT. It was on 17.1.1995 that appellant Balwinder Singh and accused Gulzar Singh (since deceased)were arrested. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted to ASI Tilak Raj (PW-10 ). After completion of the formal investigation of the case, both the accused were challaned and it was on 8.5.1995 that appellant Balwinder singh was charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under section 302 IPC whereas Gulzar Singh, co-accused was charged under section 302/34 IPC and in the alternative, they were also charge-sheeted under Sec.304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dr. Gurpal Singh. He conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of Jaspal Kaur and proved post-mortem report Ex. PA; PW-2 Dalvinder Singh. He is complainant in this case; pw-3 Satpal Singh. He is another eye-witness to the occurrence; PW-4 constable Balbir Singh. He proved his affidavit Ex. PQ; PW-5 Satish chander, Draftsman. He proved scaled site-plan, Ex. PR; PW-6 MHC satnam Singh. He also proved his affidavit to complete the chain of link evidence; PW-7 Gurnam Singh, Shopkeeper. He proved receipt Ex. PF of television (Ex. P2) which was sold to the complainant and installed at the house of the appellant; PW-8 SI Govinder Singh. He is the main investigating Officer in this case; PW-9 Constable Kuldip Rai. He proved his affidavit Ex. PS; PW-10 SI Tilak Raj. He proved the recoveries of receipt Ex. PF and Television Ex. P2, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PG and PH respectively. After closure of the evidence, the appellant was examined in terms of Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, he denied the incriminating evidence, which appeared against him. However, in answer to the last question No.20, he submitted as under :- "none of the eye witness namely Dalvinder Singh and satpal Singh witnessed the occurrence. Some unknown person caused death of the deceased who came to her house at night for the purpose of dacoity. I am innocent. " 8. When the appellant was called upon to enter on his defence, he examined DW-1 Rajinder Parkash. He deposed with regard to cordial relations between the appellant and his wife Jaspal Kaur. Some unknown person caused death of the deceased who came to her house at night for the purpose of dacoity. I am innocent. " 8. When the appellant was called upon to enter on his defence, he examined DW-1 Rajinder Parkash. He deposed with regard to cordial relations between the appellant and his wife Jaspal Kaur. He also deposed that on the night of occurrence, he alongwith 5-7 persons had also reached at the spot. 9. Learned trial Court after going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated in the opening para of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has put-forth his three-fold arguments. At the first place, he vehemently argued that in this case, the fir is delayed by 12 hours. The occurrence had taken place at about 11.00 pm on 8.1.1995 whereas, the FIR was lodged on the next day i. e. , 9.1.1995 at 11.30 AM and as such, there was an ample opportunity with the complainant-party to have deliberations with the police to involve the appellant and his brother falsely in this case. At the second place, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conduct of the star witnesses, namely, PW-2 Dalvinder Singh and PW-3 Satpal Singh, who were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, is highly unbelievable inasmuch as, after the occurrence, at about 11.00 PM, on the night intervening 8th and 9th january, 1995, none of them moved out from the place of occurrence till 6.00 AM on 9.1.1995 for lodging the report of this case. After putting forth the aforesaid points of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant then took the third limb of his submission that in fact, none of the aforesaid witnesses was present at the time of occurrence and as such, their version is concocted one. In that, it was also argued that had they been present at the spot, they would have certainly gone to the Police Station in the night time to lodge the report. 11. In that, it was also argued that had they been present at the spot, they would have certainly gone to the Police Station in the night time to lodge the report. 11. Before concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was out of station and in his absence some persons entered his house in order to commit dacoity and they committed the murder of Jaspal Kaur. 12. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab has repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and he then supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions raised on behalf of the parties and find no force in any of the contentions put-forth on behalf of the appellant, for the reasons given hereinafter. 13. Before we proceed further, it is an admitted fact that Smt. Jaspal Kaur, a young lady of 25 years, who was married about 14 months prior to her death had been murdered at the given time and place at the house of the appellant. It is well established in the statement of PW-2 dalvinder Singh, who is brother of the deceased, that the appellant was not having cordial relations with Jaspal Kaur. At one point of time, before her death, she was given beatings and sent to her parental house to bring a television and a scooter. It was thereafter that PW-2 Dalvinder Singh, her brother, had taken her back and given assurance to the appellant for arranging the aforesaid items after harvesting of his rabi crop. It is also evident that in view of his assurance given to the appellant, he had also purchased a Television from PW-7 Gurnam Singh, who had installed the same at the house of the appellant. All this goes a long-way to show that the appellant was not having cordial relations with his wife Jaspal Kaur. It was on 8.1.1995 that PW-2 Dalvinder Singh and his cousin Satpal Singh, pw-3 had gone to meet their sister Jaspal Kaur and brother-in-law, balwinder Singh. Admitedly, the house of Balwinder Singh appellant is situated in the fields in the revenue estate of Village Dalle Chak. It was on 8.1.1995 that PW-2 Dalvinder Singh and his cousin Satpal Singh, pw-3 had gone to meet their sister Jaspal Kaur and brother-in-law, balwinder Singh. Admitedly, the house of Balwinder Singh appellant is situated in the fields in the revenue estate of Village Dalle Chak. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecution that there is no dera or any house near-by the house of the appellant. On the fateful night, after taking their dinner, both the star witnesses, namely, PW-2 Dalvinder Singh, real brother and PW-3 Satpal Singh, cousin of Jaspal Kaur had slept in a separate room, whereas, the appellant and his wife Jaspal Kaur went to sleep in an adjoining room. It was at about 11.00 PM on 8.1.1995 that the witnesses had heard the shrieks of Jaspal Kaur and thereupon they rushed to her room. It is further there in their statements that when they peeped through the window, the appellant and his brother - Gulzar Singh (since dead) were seen committing the murder of Jaspal Kaur. They both raised raula and knocked at the door, but in the meantime, both the accused had fled away from the spot. The appellant was seen strangulating her with a chunni (Ex. P1) which was found tied around her neck. Both these star witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from their mouth, which could favour the case of the appellant. Not only that, the statements of complainant Dalvinder Singh (PW-2) and another eyewitness satpal Singh (PW-3) also find corroboration from the medical evidence, wherein, PW-1 Dr. Gurpal Singh has categorically opined that there was ligature mark around her neck. He further stated that the cause of death in this case was due to axphyxia as a result of strangulation. He then also opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 14. Now adverting to the main contentions of learned counsel for the appellant, it has come in the evidence that after the occurrence, both the assailants, after committing murder of Jaspal Kaur (deceased), had fled away from the house. There was also no other house situated in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. The abadi of village Dalle Chak is situated at a distance of about 15 killas. There was also no other house situated in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. The abadi of village Dalle Chak is situated at a distance of about 15 killas. In such a situation, the explanation given by pw-2 Dalvinder Singh, complainant, that being under fear, they did not move out from the room where dead-body of his sister was lying, is believable and convincing. It is further evident from the statements of material witnesses that in the morning at about 6.00 AM, complainant dalvinder Singh went on cycle first to his relatives who were residing at a distance of 8-9 Kms. and then after informing them, he straightway went to lodge the report of occurrence to the police. It was at about 10.30 AM that the complainant met PW-8 SI Govinder Singh in the area of Kala afgana, where his statement Ex. PE was recorded at 11.00 AM. 15. In this view of our foregoing discussion, it can be safely observed that both the aforesaid star witnesses of this case were present on the fateful night and there is nothing abnormal in their conduct and behaviour which could create dent in the prosecution story. As discussed above, delay in lodging the FIR also stands satisfactorily explained in the statement of PW-2 Dalvinder Singh. 16. Now coming to the defence version that the appellant was out of station on the day of occurrence and that some one had committed the murder of his wife in his absence, is highly unbelievable. This stand taken by the appellant is altogether contradictory to the defence evidence led in the statement of DW-1 Rajinder Parkash, who deposed that on 8.1.1995, accused-appellant had come to him during the night and told that his wife had been murdered. 17. If it was so how he (appellant) being out of station on the fateful night could know about the murder of his wife. Thus, the aforesaid stand taken by the appellant in his defence stands demolished. In this view of our foregoing discussion, the above contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are found to be devoid of any merit. We find no infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and the order. In the result, this appeal is hereby dismissed.