Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. Appellant Madan Lal was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323 IPC and was sentenced as under: Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC 2. The prosecution allegations, shorn of avoidable details, were as under:The appellant was in employment of deceased Harbhajan Singh, as domestic help. On the relevant day i.e. on 19.6.1997, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/-from his employer Harbhajan Singh who told him that he was presently not possessed of adequate funds and that he would pay up the demanded amount as soon as the funds were available with him. The appellant got enraged and told Harbhajan Singh that the denial of money may not cost him (Harbhajan Singh) dearly. The aforementioned utterance by the appellant invited a reprimand from Harbhajan Singh who told the former that such like things should not be said or else he (appellant) would get a beating. The episode ended there only. On that very day, the members of the complainant party retired to bed at about 9.00 PM after having had dinner. PW 11 Jagdish Singh and his father Harbhajan Singh were asleep in the courtyard, on separate beds. 3. Mother and wife of Jagdish Singh were sleeping near the Verandah alongwith other members of the family and Ranjit Singh, a maternal uncle of PW 11 Jagdish Singh who was visiting them and stayed overnight in the course thereof. An electric bulb was burning in the courtyard. On hearing some noise, PW 12 Sukhwinder Kaur woke up to find the appellant standing near the bed of her father-in-law Harbhajan Singh, with a Kulhari in his hand. On hearing the Raula raised by her, PW 11 Jagdish Singh,(Mother-in-law of Sukhwinder Kaur and her brother Ranjit Singh) got up. The appellant, within the full view of PW11 Jagdish Singh, his wife PW 12 Sukhwinder Kaur and Ors., gave two Kulhari blows on the head of Harbhajan Singh. When Jagdish Singh tried to get up from the bed, the appellant attacked him as well and gave him Kulhari blows on the left side of his face. The appellant, within the full view of PW11 Jagdish Singh, his wife PW 12 Sukhwinder Kaur and Ors., gave two Kulhari blows on the head of Harbhajan Singh. When Jagdish Singh tried to get up from the bed, the appellant attacked him as well and gave him Kulhari blows on the left side of his face. While mother of Jagdish Singh went inside to bring a stick, Sukhwinder Kaur proceeded to rescue her husband. Then, the appellant gave Kulhari blows on her left arm, head and other parts of her body from the blunt side of the weapon of offence. By the time, Ranjit Singh came over with a stick, the appellant had fled the spot and had taken the Kulhari along. 4. The injured, other than Harbhajan Singh, were taken in a tractor trolley to Government Hospital at Rajpura where they were medico-legally examined. Harbhajan Singh died enroute. The usual formalities were complied with and the appellant was challaned in due course. 5. The prosecution drew sustenance, at the trial, from the testimony on oath of PW 11 Jagdish Singh and PW 12 Sukhwinder Kaur, both of whom are injured witnesses who sustained injuries at the hands of the appellant in the course of the impugned occurrence. The case was investigated by PW 15 SI Balraj Singh. Apart from the witnesses who gave testimony of formal character, the medical evidence consists of the testimony of PW 1 Dr. S.K. Goel, PW2 Dr. I.C. Taneja, PW3 Dr. Karam Singh, PW4 Dr. Sukhbir Singh and PW5 Dr. Manjit Singh. PW 1 Dr. S.K. Goel had radiologically examined Sukhwinder Kaur on 20.6.1997 and found that there was a fracture of the radius left. 6. PW3 Dr. Karam Singh had radiologically examined Jagdish Singh on 21.6.1997 and had found a fracture of left frontal bone. On 20.6.1997, PW 2 Dr. I.C. Taneja medico-legally examined Jagdish Singh and had found the following injuries on her person: 1. A contusion 4 cm x 2.5 cm on the left side of parietal region 3 cm away from midline and 11 cm above the upper end of left pinna. Kept under observation. 2) An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm into skin deep on the anterior surface of left forearm at its medial side. The wound was obliquely placed. Fresh bleeding from the wound was present. Kept under observation. 2) An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm into skin deep on the anterior surface of left forearm at its medial side. The wound was obliquely placed. Fresh bleeding from the wound was present. 3) A diffused swelling 8 cm x 5 cm on the back of left forearm just starting from back of left wrist joint. Tenderness present. Advised Xray. 4) Complaint of pain on the top of right shoulder joint. Tenderness present. Kept under observation. 7. PW 5 Dr. Manjit Singh had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Harbhajan Singh and found the following injuries on his person: 1. 8" x 1-1/2 " horizontal incised wound, present across the face starting from right cheek, 1 " below the inferior orbital margin and 1" superolateral to the nasalala, going across the nose just above the tip of nose and extending across the left cheek and left pinna till the mastoid process. Wound was deeper on left side. On right side maxilla was cut, in nose nasal septum and bones were cut. On left side maxilla was cut. In deeper parts of the wound bones of the base of skull were also cut with the wound entering the posterior cranial fossa. 2. 5" x 1" incised wound vertically placed over right temporal region underlying bones were cut." He opined that the death of Harbhajan Singh had occurred on account of injuries No. 1 and 2 causing shock and haemorrhage and damage to the brain. He also opined that Kulhari (Ex.P4) could have been used for causing those injuries found on the person of the deceased. PW 6 Dr. Kanwaldeep Singh had declared Jagdish Singh to be fit to make a statement on 21.6.1997. He gave that opinion Ex.PH/1 on police request Ex.PH. 8. While placing reliance upon the prosecution presentation, the learned Trial Court negatived the following plea raised by the appellant: I am innocent. There is party faction in the village. The deceased and the witnesses might have received the injuries at the hands of their opponents. They falsely implicated me in this case. I was demanding my wages from them and they were not paying the same. 9. Mr. There is party faction in the village. The deceased and the witnesses might have received the injuries at the hands of their opponents. They falsely implicated me in this case. I was demanding my wages from them and they were not paying the same. 9. Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate appearing as Amicus-Curiae, argues that the falsity of the prosecution version is apparent from the fact that the appellant was not arrested on the very day of the occurrence in spite of the fact that a large number of adult male members of the family of the first informant were available over there. 10. The plea is plainly devoid of merit. It (the plea raised) is oblivious of the fact that the appellant had badly injured Harbhajan Singh, his son Jagdish Singh and latters wife Sukhwant Kaur. The appellant was carrying a Kulhari. The manner in which he is proved to have conducted himself, clearly indicated that he was in a very desperate mood and he would have hurt whosoever tried to come in his way. There is no evidence on the file that the members of the complainant party possessed a fire arm or even any other weapon with which the non-injured members of their family could have thwarted the act of the appellant or tried to hurt him. 11. All that has appeared in evidence is that Ranjit Singh (maternal uncle of PW 11 Jagdish Singh ) brought out a stick though the appellant had disappeared from the scene by that time. There is, thus, nothing unnatural in Ranjit Singh and his sister having refrained from taking any steps to catch hold of the appellant. There is nothing abnormal either in the fact that the appellant was not immediately arrested by the police. The cue is to be found in the categorical testimony of the Investigating Officer to the effect that he looked for the accused at all possible places where he could be found but he was not traceable. The fact that the appellant fled the scene and his whereabouts were not available would, even otherwise, go a long way to prove that he was running from the law after having committed the crime with which he was charged and convicted. 12. We would like to indicate here that, in the present case, there was no delay whatsoever in notifying the offence to the police. 12. We would like to indicate here that, in the present case, there was no delay whatsoever in notifying the offence to the police. The impugned occurrence had taken place at about 10.30 PM. The injured reached the hospital at about 11.25 PM. They belong to village Khanpur Khurd. The hospital is at Rajpura. The fact of arrival of the injured P.Ws and further the fact that they had been medico-legally examined was intimated by the Medical Officer to the SHO, Police Station, Rajpura, vide ruqqa Ex.PD at 12.30 AM. It is, thus, apparent that there was no delay whatsoever on the part of the members of the complainant party in the context. It also requires particular notice that the injuries found on the person of deceased Harbhajan Singh and also injured P.Ws i.e. PW 11 Jagdish Singh and PW 12 Sukhwinder Kaur are in complete accord with the ocular presentation. The prosecution version does not suffer from any vice on that account as well. As per the evidence available on the file, the appellant made a disclosure statement to the police and, thereafter, got the recovery of a Kulhari effected in pursuance thereof. 13. The present is, thus, a case in which the ocular presentation is in complete accord with the finding of the Medical Officer, there had been no inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR and the credit of the prosecution witnesses could not be shaken or impeached in any manner in the course of the cross-examination at the trial. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning given by him in support thereof. 14. The appeal is held to be completely bereft of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.