JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. 1. The appellant was tried, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and on being found guilty, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence. 2. The appellant, Jagnarayan Nayak is the husband of the deceased, Gita Devi. They were married about 18 months prior to the date of occurrence. After the marriage, the appellant, for petty matters, used to beat her. A month prior to the date of incident, the deceased Gita Devi went to the house of her brother, Sheonandan Ram, PW-4. She complained to him as well as to her father that her husband, the appellant herein, is not treating her properly. The appellant also went to the house of his in-laws and wanted to take his wife back to his village. The father of the deceased, Gita Devi, informed the appellant that he can take his wife after Karma festival. The appellant left the house. On 2.9.1994, the appellant went to the house of his in-laws where the deceased was staying. He wanted to take back his wife immediately but the father of the deceased, Gita Devi, asked the accused to come on the next day so that Gita Devi could be sent along with him. The father of the deceased left the place. The appellant and the deceased were in the house and PW-4, Sheonandan Ram, heard them quarreling with each other. He came out of the house and was talking with PW-1, Jagmohan Naik. At about 4.45 p.m., he saw the accused Jagnarayan Nayak coming out of the house with six months old daughter in his hand and running away from the house. PW-4 went inside the house and found his sister Gita Devi lying dead with injury. PW-1 Jagmohan Naik and PW-4 attempted to apprehend the appellant but could not succeed as they were threatened by the appellant. The witness could not go to the police station as it was dark and the river was flooded. On the next day, they went to the police station and gave Fardbayan, Ext.2, on the basis of which FIR , Ext. 6, was registered. Investigation was taken up by Radhey Shaym Tiwari, who was examined as PW-7. He conducted inquest by preparing an inquest report, Ext.4, during which witnesses were examined. On the next day, they went to the police station and gave Fardbayan, Ext.2, on the basis of which FIR , Ext. 6, was registered. Investigation was taken up by Radhey Shaym Tiwari, who was examined as PW-7. He conducted inquest by preparing an inquest report, Ext.4, during which witnesses were examined. After the inquest, the dead body was sent to the hospital with a requisition. 3. On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad, PW-8 conducted autopsy and he found the following injuries : Incised wound over anterior aspect of neck extending from right angle of mandible to midline of neck cutting of trachea, esophagus and right carotid vessels- 5"x 2" x 3". The doctor issued Ext.7 , the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death is on account of the injury and the said injury would have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon. 4. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the appellant and when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances and has stated that as PW-4 was not happy with the marriage of Gita Devi with him, he had given a false complaint. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the statement given by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that PW-4 was not happy with the marriage of the appellant and Gita Devi and hence had given a false complaint. He further submits that there is contradiction between the evidence of PWs-1 and 4 as regards the chasing of the appellant after the occurrence. He also submits that the prosecution did not mark the report of Chemical examiner. He, therefore, submits that the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6. We have heard Mrs. C. Prabha, learned A.P.P., for the State, on the above contention. 7. Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad, who conducted autopsy and who issued Post mortem certificate, Ext.7, was examined as PW-8. The evidence of the doctor and the post mortem certificate show that Gita Devi died on account of the injuries suffered by her and that the said injuries were homicidal in nature. 8. The prosecution examined PWs-1 and 4 to establish that the appellant caused death to his wife, Gita Devi, by cutting her neck. The evidence of the doctor and the post mortem certificate show that Gita Devi died on account of the injuries suffered by her and that the said injuries were homicidal in nature. 8. The prosecution examined PWs-1 and 4 to establish that the appellant caused death to his wife, Gita Devi, by cutting her neck. The evidence of PW-4 is to the effect that after the marriage the deceased was not happy and that she complained to her father and to him that her husband, namely, Jagnarayan Nayak, the appellant, is treating her badly. On the date of incident, she was staying with her father and that the appellant went there and wanted to take his wife back to his house. The father of the deceased advised the appellant to take back his wife after Karma festival. The appellant again went to his in-laws house on 2.9.1994 and wanted to take back his wife upon which he has advised the appellant that he can take back his wife on the next day. Thereafter, the appellant and the deceased started quarreling and PW-4 came out of the house, as he did not want to intervene between the husband and wife. The evidence of PW-4 further shows that he was standing in front of the house and talking with his friend, Jagmohan Naik. He found the appellant coming out of the house with six months old daughter and running away. PW-4 entered the house only to find his sister, Gita Devi, lying dead with her injury on the neck. Thereafter, the appellant was chased by PWs 1 and 4 , but he could not be apprehended . 9. On going through the evidence of PWs-1 and 4, we are satisfied that their evidence is convincing and cogent. It is no doubt true that there is a minor contradiction, whether PW-4 chased the appellant after the occurrence or not is found in the evidence, but this contradiction is not fatal to the prosecution. The fact remains that the appellant went to the house of his father-in-law where his wife, Gita Devi was staying and after picking up quarrel with his wife, caused injury and ran away from the place. He did not offer any explanation as to why he should run from the place after the occurrence. The fact remains that the appellant went to the house of his father-in-law where his wife, Gita Devi was staying and after picking up quarrel with his wife, caused injury and ran away from the place. He did not offer any explanation as to why he should run from the place after the occurrence. If he did not cause injury on the deceased then there is no need for the appellant to have run away from the scene taking the six months old daughter with him. In fact, PW-4s evidence is fully supported by PW-1, Jagmohan Naik, who is independent and had no reason to give false evidence against the appellant. 10. The contention of the counsel that the prosecution did not mark the Chemical examiners report is not fatal, in the background of the evidence of PWs-1 and 4. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed upon him by the trial judge. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed.