JUDGMENT
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in-Sessions case No. 61 of 1990 registered under Section 304, I.P.C. but the trial Court convicted, the appellant under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 31-1-1989 in the evening accused/appellant Shivdani Singh, who was then posted as Head Constable at Nala Police Station was on duty at Pitch road. The Informant, Mansu Murmu (PW-5) was bringing rice after husking the same in the bullock cart. The deceased Subodhan Hembram aged about 15 years was driving the bullock cart and when the said cart reached near the house of Mansu Murmu, the appellant asked to stop the cart. The deceased, Subodhan Hembram did not understand the order of the accused and as such he did not stop the cart and thereafter the appellant assaulted him with Lathi on his back. The deceased fell down from the, cart and the wheel of the cart passed through his body resulting injury to Subodhan Hembram and blood started coming out from his nose and mouth and he was also vomiting blood, whereafter the appellant thrashed him asking as to why he did not stop the cart. The deceased was brought in his house where he died.
Accordingly, FIR was lodged under Section 304, I.P.C. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant appeared before the Court of Sessions and the charge under Section 304, I.P.C. was framed, to which the appellant denied. The witnesses were examined in the Court below and after hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, in the manner as stated above.
3. Altogether, six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove its case PW-3 is the doctor, who held post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:
(i) There was bleeding from both nostrils and mouth.
(ii) A big swelling with haematoma over the mid occipital region of scalp, size 21/2 x 2″.
(iii) Right side of chest was looking collapsed with fracture of 4th and 5th ribs in Ant-axillary line.
(iv) Faecol matters were present near the Anus:–
(a) On dissection the cut section of the scalp a big subcutaneous haemotoma was found over the mid occipital region with the crack and fracture of the occipital bone. The membrance were congested and brain matters mixed with blood.
(b) On out section of the chest there was the fracture of the 4th and 5th ribs on the right side. The right lung was ruptured anteriorly. The size of the rupture was 11/2 x 1″ x 1/2. The chest cavity was filled with much blood.
(c) The heart was empty,
(d) On cut section of the abdomen stomach contained semi digested food. Liver, Spleen, kidney were normal. Urinary bladder was empty. Intestine contained a little gas.
In his opinion, the death of the deceased was due to intracranial haemorrhage caused by suffering hard injuries and grievous in-Jury over the right side of the chest. The postmortem report was marked-Ext. 2.
4. PW-1 deposed that Subodhan Hembrom was driving the bullock/buffalo cart when the appellant ordered him to stop the cart he could not understand Hindi. Thereafter, then appellant assaulted him with Lathi on his head. It was also stated that the appellant took him on the road and thereafter thrashed him on the road, resulting bleeding from nose and mouth. Thereafter Subodhan Hembrom died. He stated in his cross-examination that he could not take Subodhan to the hospital as he died there. The cycle of appellant was given or handed over to Chowkidar under Zimmanana by the public.
5. PW-2 also supported the case and according to him. Subodhan Hembrom was the driver of bullock cart when the appellant was Havildar at the relevant time and he ordered to stop the cart and because the cart could not be stopped on the order of appellant, he was assaulted by him with lathi on the head. Thereafter, he fell down. It is further stated that the appellant thrashed him on the road and thereafter he also thrashed his chest by his foot. He stated in his cross-examination that the appellant put his foot on the chest of the deceased. He clearly deposed that he has no knowledge about the appellant’s filing any case in which he has been an accused. But, it may be noted here that no such document has been produced from the side of the defence showing that this witness, PW-2 has been accused in any case.
6. PW-4 also supported the prosecution case claiming that the appellant took the driver of bullock cart, namely, Subodhan Hembrom and thrashed him on the road and also pressed his chest with his foot, resulting bleeding from his mouth and nose. He stated in his cross-examination that he has stated before the police that the appellant/ Havildar assaulted Subodhan with Lathi and also pressed his chest by his foot. PW-5 is the informant, who stated in clear terms that the appellant was Constable at the relevant time there and he ordered to stop the bullock cart, which could not be understood by Subodhan and thereafter the appellant assaulted him with lathi on his head. Thereafter, Subodhan fell down. He further stated that the appellant took him to the road and thrashed him and also climbed over his chest and pressed his chest also, resulting bleeding from mouth. He proved his Fardbayan (Ext. 1/1). He stated in his cross-examination that Subodhan was driving the card by sitting over the same. The appellant was standing by the side of the road. According to him, Subodhan fell down from the cart and buffalos drawing the cart also took away the same. He further deposed that the appellant was assaulting Subodhan when the villagers had intervened. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge- sheet.
7. Apparently, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 are the eye-witnesses and they are consistent in deposing that the appellant assaulted Subodhan Hembrom (deceased) with lathi who was driving the cart only because he could not stopped the cart on the order of the appellant and then the deceased fell down from the cart at that time. Postmortem report clearly goes to indicate that the deceased Subodhan Hembrom sustained serious injuries on the right chest causing fracture of 4th and 5th ribs with rupture on right lung. Even if Subodhan Hembrom fell down and came under the wheel of the said cart, which was carrying rice, that was because of the assault by the appellant.
8. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence which does not require for any interference. Obviously, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In my view, that is also not required to be interfered and he has rightly sentenced the appellant for the said offence.
9. In this view of the matter, there appears no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant appears to be on bail, hence his bail bond is cancelled. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps for his arrest to serve out the remaining sentence.
Let lower Court records be sent down forthwith.