Judgment Jaswant Singh, J. 1. Appellant Ashok Kumar has preferred this appeal against judgment/order dated 21.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana convicting him under Sec.302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- and further, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement (Ex. PH) given by Raj kumar (PW5) S/o Balwant Singh, Caste Balmiki to SI/sho Balbir Singh (PW8) on 20.6.1999 at 1.30 AM in the area of Bus Stand, Khanna. Raj Kumar (PW5) stated that he was resident of Near Old Electric Office, Khanna and used to ply rickshaw. They were three sisters and two brothers. His sister Sunita Rani was earlier married with Beg Raj R/o Kheuri, District Muzzaffar Nagar about five years back. About three years back, sunita Rani divorced her earlier husband and started residing with them at khanna. She gave birth to a daughter namely Rajji about two and half years back. She (Sunita Rani) started serving in Kabza Factory at Khanna for the last about one and half years, where she developed intimacy with a factory worker named Ashok Kumar S/o Sagheshar Ram Harijan, R/o Teldian, P. S. Udha, Kishan ganj, District Madhopur (Bihar ). They were married for about last one year. He further stated that his sister and brother-in-law were earlier residing in the kabza Factory and after two months of their marriage, they went to their village Teldian (Bihar ). Now, for the last about one and half months, they both have returned to Khanna and started living on rent by taking a room in the house of one Sham Lal bearing No.37, Mohalla Narotam Nagar and his brother-in-law started plying rickshaw. He stated that on 19.6.1999, in the evening at about 7.00 PM, his sister and her daughter Rajji came to their house to meet them. At about 10.00 PM, his brother-in-law (behnoi) Ashok Kumar reached their house with his rickshaw and started asking Sunita as to why she had come there without his consent and permission. He told them not to quarrel and should go to their house. Then Ashok Kumar started telling to teach her a lesson on reaching the house. Ashok Kumar made Sunita to sit on his rickshaw and while grumbling proceeded at Narotam Nagar. He told them not to quarrel and should go to their house. Then Ashok Kumar started telling to teach her a lesson on reaching the house. Ashok Kumar made Sunita to sit on his rickshaw and while grumbling proceeded at Narotam Nagar. His mother Somi Devi told him that Ashok kumar would beat Sunita Rani and, therefore, they both followed them in their rickshaw to Narotam Nagar and reached the house of Ashok Kumar. Where, they saw that Ashok Kumar had picked up a danda from the room and gave blow on the head of Sunita Rani, who was standing in the court yard, which hit on her left temple. Sunita Rani fell on the ground in the court-yard. Blood started oozing out of her mouth and as soon as they rushed to take care of her, she breathed her last. Ashok Kumar ran away from the spot by throwing the danda. Raj Kumar stated that the motive behind the crime is that ashok Kumar used to restrain his sister Sunita Rani from visiting their house and used to tell her not to meet them. 3. On the basis of Raj Kumars statement, FIR No.95 dated 20.6.1999 (Ex. PH/2)was recorded at P. S. Khanna at 1.40 AM and the said report reached JMIC, Khanna at 3.00 AM at his residence on 20.6.1999. Danda stained with blood, which was lying at the spot, was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF. Sample of the bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence was taken into possession vide ex. PG. Post mortem was conducted on 20.6.1999 at 10.20 AM by Sh. M. K. Singla (PW1 ). Report of the FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh was exhibited as Ex. PL, which reveals both danda and blood stained earth to be stained with human blood. 4. Case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana after finding that prima facie case for the offence under Sec.304 IPC was made out. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on the basis of the material available on record, vide order dated 18.1.2000 charge sheeted the accused for an offence under Sec.302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, to prove their case, examined nine witnesses and led documentary evidence from Ex. PA to Ex. DB including site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex. PK ). 6. 5. The prosecution, to prove their case, examined nine witnesses and led documentary evidence from Ex. PA to Ex. DB including site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex. PK ). 6. Accused Ashok Kumar in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C stated that he was falsely involved in the case due to enmity as he had performed marriage with Sunita Rani against the wishes of the complainant and his mother and on that count, they were annoyed with him. It was further stated that the complainant Raj Kumar used to borrow money from him and he owed huge amount to him. However, he led no evidence. 7. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence proved on record, learned additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 21.5.2001 found accused Ashok Kumar guilty resulting in his conviction and sentence. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Advocate general for the State of Punjab and with their able assistance, we have gone through the entire case file and evidence on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and the whole prosecution version is doubtful. It was argued that eye-witness account is not supported by the medical evidence. Presence of the eye- witnesses is also doubtful as the appellant had married Sunita (since deceased) against the wishes of the complainant party and their relations were strained, therefore, there was no occasion for them to be present at the alleged time of occurrence. It was further argued that as per the prosecution story, the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 PM in a residential area, yet no independent witness was associated, thus falsifying the prosecution story. It was also argued that the recovery of the danda, alleged weapon of offence from the place of occurrence is doubtful in view of its non-mentioning in the inquest proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the presence of the eye-witnesses i. e brother of the deceased Raj Kumar-PW5 (complainant) and the mother Somi Devi-PW6 is natural in the circumstances of the case and their testimony is consistent on material facts and corroborated by medical evidence, therefore, sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence. 11. It will be appropriate for us to first of all examine the eye- witness account. 11. It will be appropriate for us to first of all examine the eye- witness account. PW5-complainant/brother of the deceased and PW6-mother of the deceased have testified that the deceased Sunita had married accused Ashok kumar about one year back. After residing for two- months in the Kabza Factory, they had gone back to Bihar to live in the house of the accused. After six/seven months of residing at Bihar, they had returned to reside in Narotam nagar at Khanna by taking a room on rent. The accused had started plying a rickshaw. Deceased Sunita Rani with her daughter had visited their house on 19.6.1999 at around 7.00 PM. At about 10.00 PM, the accused Ashok Kumar also came to their house with his rickshaw and asked Sunita as to why she had visited their house without his consent. It has been specifically deposed by both the witnesses that the accused Ashok kumar abused Sunita Rani and threatened her that he would teach her a lesson, when she returns to his house and had while grumbling taken her home in his rickshaw. Although, it was admitted by the eye-witnesses that the deceased sunita had married Ashok Kumar against their wishes, in such circumstances, it is quite understandable for the mother and the brother of the deceased to follow the accused and Sunita to her matrimonial house in order to check on the safety of their sister- daughter. Thus, in the facts of the case, their presence, at the time of the occurrence, is natural and cannot be doubted. PW5-Raj Kumar has testified that the accused was abusing Sunita, when they reached the house of the accused at 11.00 PM. They found that the accused was abusing Sunita and within their presence, he took out a bambu danda and gave a blow with the same on the left temple of Sunita, who fell down in the courtyard, which was lit by electric bulb. This fact has been corroborated by PW6-Somi Devi, although she has, instead of one, stated that two danda blows were inflicted on the head of Sunita. It is to be noticed that the occurrence in this case is that of 11.00 PM and the FIR was recorded at 1.40 AM and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 3.00 AM at his residence on 20.6.1999. It is to be noticed that the occurrence in this case is that of 11.00 PM and the FIR was recorded at 1.40 AM and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 3.00 AM at his residence on 20.6.1999. Promptness with which FIR was lodged and the special report submitted proves that the probability of any concoction by the prosecution was minimised. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to take the benefit of the fact admitted by PW5 and PW6 in their cross-examination that they did not know the name of the father of the accused nor his village and Police Station and the District and that these particulars were got recorded in the statement of Raj Kumar after obtaining such details from the son of Massi of the accused, who had been brought at the spot. This admission by the complainant is of no help to the accused-appellant but further proves the prosecution story to be truthful. It is an admitted case that the accused Ashok Kumar had married Sunita (since deceased) against the wishes of her family and the relations of the accused Ashok Kumar were strained with the complainant and her mother-in-law. Accused Ashok Kumar used to resent sunita visiting her family members without his consent. Therefore, it is quite understandable that they did not know regarding the detailed particulars of ashok Kumar accused. By mere summoning the son of massi of the accused and eliciting such particulars would not, in our opinion, in any way shatter the version of the eye-witnesses. 12. Pw1-dr. N. K. Singla, who conducted the post-mortem found the following injuries on the dead body of deceased Sunita: i) A lacerated wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm on the left forehead, 5 cm above and 1.5 cm to the left from the bridge of nose. Clotted blood was present. On dissection, a corresponding fracture of bone and brainoissue was found. The carnial cavety was having blood. ii)A contusion 5 cm x 2 cm III defined present on the left side of head, 8 cm above the top of the left ear pinna. On dissection, there was found to be a corresponding injury to soft tissue. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to head injuries No.1 and 2, which were anti mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On dissection, there was found to be a corresponding injury to soft tissue. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to head injuries No.1 and 2, which were anti mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was an over-writing inasmuch as injury No.2 may have been subsequently added by him to show that the same was also sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He stated that the distance between two injuries was 4 to 5 inches. He further admitted that the possibility of both the injuries being suffered by fall of accident could not be ruled out. Therefore, no mileage from such statement of over- writing by the doctor in his cross-examination, in our considered opinion, be derived. Further, as regards the contended discrepancy in respect of number of injuries in the ocular version and the medical evidence, from the cross-examination of the doctor (PW1), it is evident that it is quite possible that injury No.2 was a result of the fall of the deceased on the ground after the danda blow on left side of her head. It is also quite possible that eye-witnesses on account of the sudden infliction of the danda blow on their daughter/sister by the accused were shell shocked and dumbstruck to notice two strikes instead of one. In any case, it has been proved that the injuries were caused with a danda Ex. P.1 and that human blood was found at the site of occurrence as also on the danda ex. P.1 as is clear from the report of FSL ex. PL. Therefore, there is no reason for disbelieving the version of the prosecution by attaching undue importance to the slight inconsistency in the ocular and medical evidence, which otherwise has been found to be explained hereinabove. 13. As regards non-mentioning of recovery of danda (bambu stick) Ex. P.1 (3 length and 1" diameter) in the column of inquest proceedings conducted by the investigating Officer-PW8 Balbir Singh is concerned, it cannot be given much importance. At best, it can be construed as a lapse on the part of the investigating Officer during the conduct of the investigations for which the otherwise believable and proved prosecution version cannot be rejected. At best, it can be construed as a lapse on the part of the investigating Officer during the conduct of the investigations for which the otherwise believable and proved prosecution version cannot be rejected. Still further the fact that the accused Ashok Kumar absconded after the occurrence of the offence and was declared a proclaimed offender and subsequently arrested for the first time on 7.12.1991 is also a relevant circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 14. In respect of the submission that no independent witnesses were associated during the investigations despite the occurrence having taken place in a residential area, it is well-accepted that the members of the public are extremely hesitant to join the investigations conducted by the police in order to avoid enmity with the accused party as well as the procedural harassment at the hands of police and in the Courts. Most people belonging to the strata of the society as that of the parties herein are busy in earning their own livelihood and surviving on day to day basis. Therefore, non-joining of independent witnesses is also not material in rendering the prosecution version doubtful in any manner. 15. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt for causing the death of Sunita Devi. However, keeping in view the nature of the weapon of offence i. e danda (Bamboo stick of 3 length and 1 inch diameter) and the fact that the accused had without any premeditation suddenly inflicted the injuries on his wifes head during the quarrel going on between them, in our opinion, in view of Exception 4 to Sec.300 IPC, accused Ashok Kumar is held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thus punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed, the offence under Sec.302 IPC for which the accused Ashok kumar was convicted and sentenced is converted to offence punishable under section 304 Part II IPC. We have been informed that the appellant Ashok Kumar was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the present appeal after having undergone more than five years of sentence in view of the judgment of this court reported as Dharampal V/s. State of Haryana 1999 (4) RCR (Crl.) 400. We have been informed that the appellant Ashok Kumar was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the present appeal after having undergone more than five years of sentence in view of the judgment of this court reported as Dharampal V/s. State of Haryana 1999 (4) RCR (Crl.) 400. We feel that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.