Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The appellant challenges his conviction under section 302 IPC, for which he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further RI for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution is that Charanjit Kaur, deceased was married to the appellant about seven years prior to the occurrence, which took place on 7.2.1997 at 9 PM. A son was born out of the wedlock, who was about two and a half years on the date occurrence. On 7.2.1997, Darshan Singh PW2, brother of the deceased and his nephew Sukhpal Singh PW3 went to the house of the accused to meet the deceased. They found that the appellant was under the influence of liquor and was sitting on a cot. The deceased was advising him to stop taking liquor from the candidates contesting the election. The appellant reprimanded her. On intervention of Darshan Singh and Sukhpal Singh, the matter was settled. After taking meals, Darshan Singh and Sukhpal Singh slept in the verandah, while the appellant and the deceased went to sleep in their room. At 9 PM, Darshan Singh and Sukhpal Singh heard the noise of talking of the appellant and the deceased. The appellant was remarking as to how she could stop him from taking liquor. Electric light was on. In their sight, the appellant picked up a "ghotna (a wooden piece used in the kitchen) and gave a blow in the stomach of the deceased with force. She fell down. The appellant ran away from the spot with the said `ghotna. Darshan Singh and Sukhpal Singh attended to the deceased but she died on account of injuries. Leaving Sukhpal Singh to guard the dead body, Darshan Singh went to inform his family members. He met the Sarpanch at 1.30 A.M. In the morning at 3.45 AM, on 8.2.1997, Darshan Singh alongwith Ajaib Singh, Sarpanch, met Inspector Amolak Singh PW4, who recorded his statement Ex.PF, which led to registration of FIR. PW4 Inspector Amolak Singh went to the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem, apart from taking other steps. The accused was arrested on 17.2.1997 and on his disclosure statement, `ghotna Ex.P1 was recovered. After investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. 3. PW1 Dr. PW4 Inspector Amolak Singh went to the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem, apart from taking other steps. The accused was arrested on 17.2.1997 and on his disclosure statement, `ghotna Ex.P1 was recovered. After investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. 3. PW1 Dr. Vijay Kumar Singla conducted post mortem examination on 8.2.1997 at 4.50 PM and made following observations :- "1.There was reddish contuse swelling 10 cm x 5 cm on the left lateral and upper part of the abdomen extending to the posterior side. On dissection underlying 10th and 11th ribs were fractured. Clotted blood was present in the tissue. On further dissection spleen was lacerated on posterior lateral aspect and peritonial cavity was full of blood. On Thorax. Walls ribs and cartilages as describe pleurae, larynx and tracheae were healthy. Right lung and left lung healthy and slightly congested pieces of both lungs sent for chemical examination. Heart was healthy and empty. Abdomen" was healthy and as described. Peritoneum, mouth pharyn and oesophagus were healthy. Stomach and its contents, small intestines and their contents, large intestines and their contents, liver, spleen, kidneys etc., were healthy and sent to chemical examination. Bladder healthy and empty. Organs of generation external and internal healthy and clotted blood was present in the vagina uterus non gravid. No external injury was seen on the vagina." In his opinion, the death was as result of shock and haemorrhage in view of injury No. 1, which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 4 The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Vijay Kumar Singla PW1, Darshan Singh PW2, Sukhpal Singh PW3 and Inspector Amolak Singh PW4. 5. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that on 8.2.1997 at 4 AM, Charanjit Kaur while coming out of the bathroom stumbled and fell on wooden log and sustained injuries. When he was making arrangement to take her to the hospital alongwith his parents, she died. Her parents were informed who came at 8 AM. They were satisfied that the death was due to accidental injuries but on suggestion of Ajaib Singh, Sarpanch, police was informed and came to his house at 12 noon. He was arrested on the same day and was falsely implicated. 6. Her parents were informed who came at 8 AM. They were satisfied that the death was due to accidental injuries but on suggestion of Ajaib Singh, Sarpanch, police was informed and came to his house at 12 noon. He was arrested on the same day and was falsely implicated. 6. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, held the case of the prosecution to be proved and convicted and sentenced the appellant. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that there is delay in lodging of the FIR and the conduct of eye witnesses PW2 Darshan Singh and PW3 Sukhpal Singh creates doubt about their presence on the place of occurrence. If they had been present on the place of occurrence, they would have intervened and saved the deceased or would have informed the Sarpanch or other respectables of the village or raised alarm. Alternatively, it was submitted that the case would fall under section 304 Part I IPC. He relied upon judgment of this Court dated 20.8.1990 in Gurmel Singh v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 220 DB of 1988. 9. We do not find any merit in the contention raised. 10. PW2 Darshan Singh, brother of the deceased has fully supported the version given by him in his statement Ex.PH. There was nothing unnatural in his visiting the house of his sister and thus having seen the occurrence. After the occurrence, he went to his village and informed Ajaib Singh Sarpanch at 1.30 PM and met the police party at 3.45 AM. This version has been fully supported by PW3 Sukhpal Singh. Minor discrepancies do not create any doubt about the correctness of the version. He has no reason to falsely implicate his own brother-in-law. Mere non-interference in saving the deceased does not falsify presence of witnesses as everyone reacts in a different manner and deceased having given fatal blow, the witnesses could do nothing to save the deceased. Moreover, the occurrence took place in the house of the appellant. His plea of accidental death is clearly false. The nature of injury resulting in fracture of 10th and 11th ribs is clearly homicidal caused with great force. The same was sufficient to cause death. Moreover, the occurrence took place in the house of the appellant. His plea of accidental death is clearly false. The nature of injury resulting in fracture of 10th and 11th ribs is clearly homicidal caused with great force. The same was sufficient to cause death. Burden of proving circumstances of death of a wife taking place in the house of her husband is on the accused under section 106 of the evidence Act. There being no acceptable explanation by the accused, the circumstance of death of the deceased in the house of the appellant is a strong circumstance against the appellant, which corroborates the version of the eye witnesses. 11. As regards the nature of offence, we have already held that the death was homicidal as a result of injury caused by the accused and the said injury was not accidental. There may be no motive or premeditation or intention to cause death and the occurrence may have taken place on account of sudden anger of the appellant but that by itself cannot bring the case in Exception Fourthly of Section 300 IPC by being equated to sudden fight. The injury cannot be held to be unintentional. The case clearly falls in Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The judgement relied upon is distinguishable. Reference may be made to law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 , Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala,AIR 1966 SC 1874 and State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.