Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. Appellant Balwant son of Hazari Lal who was convicted by the learned Trial Court for an offence under Section 302 IPC and was directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, has applied for the invalidation of the impugned finding. 2. For precise appreciation of the controversy, facts in the first instance. 3. On 11.7.1997, at about 1/1.30 PM, appellant Balwant Singh came over to the house of Rajinder, brother of PW 3 and took him along to his house. At about 2.30 PM, PW 3 Abhey Singh was on way to his fields when he met PW 7 Kanwar Singh enroute. The latter was also proceeding from his house towards his fields. When both of them reached near the Baithak of the appellant situated out side the village, they heard a sound of shrieks coming from inside the Baithak. They went over near the window of that room and saw the appellant causing injuries to Rajender with a spade. They also overheard appellant declaring that he would settle all the accounts and clear the obstacle. Both of them entered the room through a door. On seeing them approaching the scene, the appellant fled the spot through another door and carried along the weapon of offence. PW 3 Kehar Singh and PW 7 Kanwar Singh gave him an abortive chase. 4. The appellant had an evil eye on the wife of the deceased and he was on a look out for an opportunity to do away with him. It is that motive which actuated him to commit the crime with which he stands charged. 5. PW 7 Kanwar Singh and Ex-Sarpanch Sujjan Singh stayed over to guard the dead body of Rajender and PW 3 Abhey Singh went to Police Station, Nangal Chaudhary and lodged First Information Report Ex. PC. The appellant was arrested on that very evening. 6. The ocular segment of the prosecution plea consists of the statements of PW 3 Abhey Singh and PW 7 Kanwar Singh. The medical evidence consists of the testimony of PW 1 Dr. PC. The appellant was arrested on that very evening. 6. The ocular segment of the prosecution plea consists of the statements of PW 3 Abhey Singh and PW 7 Kanwar Singh. The medical evidence consists of the testimony of PW 1 Dr. R.S. Sharma who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rajender and had found the following injuries on his person: i) 10 cm x 1 cm x trachear death incised wound with bleeding reddish as placed on upper part of thypoid gland in neck transversely placed 3 cm on right and 7 cm on left from midline. Big blood vesseons nserves cut. 2. 4 cm x ½ cm x bone depth incised wound with reddish edges below chin on right side. 3. 2 cm x ½ cm x skin deep incised wound on right side of inferior border of mandible 3 cm lateral to injury No. 2. 4. 1 cm x ½ cm bone depth incised wound on right side of forehead 2 cms above from right eye-brow. 5. 10 cm x 5 cm x bone depth incised wound on posterior part of skull with occipital bone fracture on dissection. Large clot subdural haematoma was present (clot). 7. Doctor Sharma opined that the death had occurred on account of shock due to haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos.1 and 5 which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The ligature mark on the neck was found to be post-mortem in nature. PW 10 Inspector Dalbir Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. He had recorded the FIR and forwarded the Special Report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, through a constable. He got the spot photographed. He carried out the inquest proceedings. He interrogated the appellant, on latters apprehension, in the presence of Jaswant Singh and Gangadin. The appellant made a disclosure statement Ex. PF and, in pursuance thereof, led to the recovery of spade Ex. P1 which was found to be blood stained. The disclosure statement and also the recovery aforementioned were attested by PW 8 Gangadin. PW 9 Virender Singh had photographed the spot and proved photographs Ex. P7 to P9, Ex. P4 to Ex. P6 are their negatives. The testimony of other witnesses is formal in character. 8. The appellant raised a plea that he has been framed in this case due to party faction. PW 9 Virender Singh had photographed the spot and proved photographs Ex. P7 to P9, Ex. P4 to Ex. P6 are their negatives. The testimony of other witnesses is formal in character. 8. The appellant raised a plea that he has been framed in this case due to party faction. Though the appellant initially indicated an inclination to adduce defence evidence, none was actually adduced. 9. The ocular presentation was relied upon by the learned Trial Judge to record a finding of conviction. Ofcourse, sustenance in support of the finding was also drawn from the medical evidence. 10. Ms. Gita Sharma, Advocate, the learned Amicus-Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the appellant deserves benefit of doubt for the following reasons: i) The ocular presentation is not in accord with the medical evidence. ii) There is nothing on the file to indicate that any rope was found at the spot. The availability of rope, the argument proceeded, would have lent support to the theory presented that there was a ligature mark on the neck. iii) It seems unnatural that the appellant could not be apprehended in spite of the fact that he was chased by both PW 3 Abhey Singh and also PW 7 Kanwar Singh. 11. After having noticed the items of grievance indicated by the Amicus-Curiae, we proceed to analyse the validity thereof. 12. As evident from the testimony on oath of PW 1 Dr. R.S. Sharma as many as five injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. All the five were incised wounds. Insofar as injury No. 5 was concerned, it was found on dissection that there was occipital bone fracture. Though it is true that both the witnesses belonging to the ocular presentation segment did not aver that as many as five injuries were inflicted by the appellant upon the deceased, it cannot be ignored that they were one on the point that they spotted the appellant giving spade blows to the deceased. It is not their version that they were present at the spot from the very time the appellant started giving blows to the deceased. They just happened to be around when they heard shrieks from inside the Baithak of the appellant and were attracted to the spot and it was there that they found that the appellant was inflicting injuries upon the deceased. 13. They just happened to be around when they heard shrieks from inside the Baithak of the appellant and were attracted to the spot and it was there that they found that the appellant was inflicting injuries upon the deceased. 13. The defence endeavoured a suggestion that both of them PW 3 Abhey Singh and PW 7 Kanwar Singh had no reasons to pass by the side of the Baithak of the accused as that area would not fall enroute if they are to proceed from their house to their fields. They denied the suggestion as incorrect. The appellant did not pursue the matter any further. If the appellant was able to prove that both the aforementioned PWs had no business for adopting that route, he would have been able to put forth a plea of exoneration from liability. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that the onus to prove that fact was upon the appellant only, in the face of a categorical denial by both the aforementioned PWs in the context. There could be hundred and one ways to prove the plea suggested to those witnesses. None was adopted to prove the plea raised and to falsify the denial thereof by aforementioned witnesses. 14. We do not, thus, find any inconsistency between the ocular and medical presentation. 15. As per the testimony of PW Dr. R.S. Sharma, the ligature mark on neck was post-mortem in nature. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature. It appears that the appellant initially strangulated the deceased and, in order to ensure that the deceased had died, he opted to inflict the above five injuries which were described by the doctor to be ante-mortem in nature. The mere fact of non-availability of the rope at the spot is not sufficient to prove the otherwise validly proved prosecution plea. 16. On his own showing, the appellant is an unmarried boy aged about 20 years. In spite of the fact that both PW 3 Abhey Singh and PW 7 Kanwar Singh categorically testified on oath that the appellant had a motive to do away with the deceased as he had an evil eye on the wife of the latter, there is not even a word in their cross-examination to question their credentials in the context of the suggestion on the above point. As the allegation was personal in nature and touching the moral credentials of the appellant, he could have entered the witness box in his own discretion to falsify the suggestion in the relevant behalf. Not only that the appellant did not do so, no cross-examination either was directed at the two witnesses on the point under reference. 17. We have been taken through the material obtaining on the file by the learned Amicus-Curiae and also the State counsel. We find that the deposition rendered by PW 3 Abhey Singh and PW 7 Kanwar Singh is clear, un-ambiguous and clinching. Further, their credit could be shaken or impeached on any consequential point in the course of cross- examination. They have not been proved to have any personal enmity with the appellant on account where of they would have been inclined to frame the latter in this case. Apart there from, the ocular presentation is fully in accord with the medical evidence. The appellant did get the recovery of weapon of offence effected in pursuance of a disclosure statement. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, blood of human origin was found on the clothes and the Kassi which were sent to the Laboratory for examination. 18. In so far as grievance indicated in item No. 3 is concerned, it too is devoid of merit. It requires particular notice in the context that PW 3 Abhey Singh is a man of 25 years and PW 7 Kanwar Singh gave his age as 45 years. As against it, the appellant gave his age as 20 years at the trial. It would be illogical to expect that persons in their thirties and forties would be able to mach the swiftness of a man in early twenties particularly when the last indicated (appellant) had a great stake in fleeing from the spot, along with the weapon of offence. Apart there from, it also cannot be ignored that PW 3 Abhey Singh whose real brother had been murdered in his full view must have been under great personal stress at that time. It is not in evidence that the deceased succumbed to the injuries immediately and to the notice of those PWs who (PWs) must have been more interested in taking steps to get some possible medical aid to the injured than apprehending the appellant. 19. It is not in evidence that the deceased succumbed to the injuries immediately and to the notice of those PWs who (PWs) must have been more interested in taking steps to get some possible medical aid to the injured than apprehending the appellant. 19. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is ordered to be dismissed.