Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.2.1993 recorded by Sri S.K. Murari, 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 542/89 thereby and thereunder the appellant was found guilty under Section 304, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. By the same judgment, the other two accused facing trial, namely. Tata Ladura Munda and Lambo Devi were acquitted. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 10.7.1987, the informant Soma Munda alongwith his wife were in the house of Budhua Munda who lost his parents and according to the informant, they were entrusted to look after the boy Budhua by the villagers, but, in the meantime accused Tata Ladura Munda, Lambo Devi and this appellant, Gola Munda asked the informant to leave the house of Budhua and when the informant refused, the appellant and two others assaulted the wife of the informant by fists and slaps and also by a bottle. On alarm. Singhrai Manki a relation of Manbodh Manki came and intervened in the matter. Then the informant also assaulted him with a bottle. Then they all had gone to the house of Manbodh Manki and Manbodh Manki tried to intervene in the matter. Then this very appellant Gola Munda gave a lathi blow on his head causing serious injury on him. 3. Immediately the injured Manbodh Manki was removed to Khunti State Dispensary and in the dispensary the fardbayan of the informant Some Munda was recorded by Murhu police at about 1 p.m. on 11.7.1989 and on that basis a case under Sections 447, 324/323, IPC was instituted as against the appellants and two others. In course of treatment Manbodh died on 24.7.1989 and his dead-body was buried by the villagers. But the police after getting information exhumed the dead-body from the graveyard and inquest was prepared on 27.7.1987 and the post-mortem was held on 28.7.1987 and police after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 304, IPC as against the appellant and Lambo Devi and Tata Ladura Munda. 4. In the trial Court this appellant and two other accused facing trial claimed themselves innocent and they claimed that they have been falsely implicated. But no specific defence version was set up. 4. In the trial Court this appellant and two other accused facing trial claimed themselves innocent and they claimed that they have been falsely implicated. But no specific defence version was set up. The trial Court found this appellant guilty under Section 304, IPC and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. However, the other two accused Lambo Devi and Tata Ladura Munda were found not guilty and acquitted. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction, the sole appellant has preferred this appeal and has challenged the findings of the trial Court. 5. According to the prosecution, this occurrence took place in the night of 10.7.1987 in village Kitahatu and the occurrence is in two parts; first of all this appellant and two others had gone to the house of Budhua, an orphan boy where the informant Soma was residing to look after him as the boy was entrusted to him by the villagers. The informant tried to remove Soma but Soma protested. Ultimately Soma was assaulted by the appellant and two others. Then on his alarm PW 2 came who too intervened in the matter, but he too was assaulted by other accused Ladura Munda by a glass bottle. The informant, PW 2, followed by the appellant and other accused had gone to the house of Manbodh Manki where the second occurrence took place. For the first occurrence that took place in the house of Budhua the appellant had been charged under Section 323, IPC and for the second occurrence which took place in the house of Manbodh, the appellant has been charged under Section 304. IPC. 6. The informant, Soma who has figured himself as PW 1 has not supported the prosecution case and so he had been declared hostile. However, PW 2 Singrai Manki claimed that on the relevant night, on getting alarm he had gone to the house of Budhua where this appellant was present alongwith two others and the tried to intervene in the matter, then he was assaulted by a glass bottle. On that, he rushed to the house of Manbodh Manki. Manbodh tried to intervene in the matter, but he was given a lathi blow by this appellant causing serious injury on him. Then the injured was taken to Khunti hospital and after some days he died. On that, he rushed to the house of Manbodh Manki. Manbodh tried to intervene in the matter, but he was given a lathi blow by this appellant causing serious injury on him. Then the injured was taken to Khunti hospital and after some days he died. This PW 2 is an injured witness and thus, his presence cannot be ruled out. Admittedly there is no enmity between this witness and the appellant. 7. Similarly. PW 4 Gola Munda and Sohagi Munda in claimed that when the PW 2 the informant and the accused persons came to their house, then Manbodh intervened in the matter but this very appellant gave lathi blow on his head causing serious injury to him and then Manbodh was removed to hospital. Some other witnesses have also stated that from the hospital, Manbodh was brought to his home and once he was taken to Ranchi for treatment and then again he was brought to his home where the died. 8. It appears from the evidence on the record that Manbodh died sometime on 24.7.1987 and as the villagers buried him, so his dead-body was taken out from the graveyard and inquest was prepared and post-mortem was held on 28.7.1987 by Dr. Shamual Minz. Unfortunately, Dr. Shamal Minz also died in an accident and so he could not be examined and post-mortem report, that is, Ext. I was proved by another man and from the post-mortem report, it appears that the deceased sustained two injuries one near the ear which result in a fracture and the other on the head and according to the doctor, these injuries were caused by lathi and injury No. 1 caused the death. 9. As the appellant gave blow by lathi. that too all on a sudden, and his intention was not to commit murder of the deceased, and the deceased also died after ten days or so. from the date of assault, so rightly the Court below convicted the appellant under Section 304, IPC and this case comes within Section 304, Part II, IPC. As the occurrence took place all on a sudden and there was no prior enmity with the deceased, and this occurrence took place because the deceased tried to intervene, I think the and of justice will be met if he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years only under Section 304, Part II. As the occurrence took place all on a sudden and there was no prior enmity with the deceased, and this occurrence took place because the deceased tried to intervene, I think the and of justice will be met if he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years only under Section 304, Part II. IPC, Though the appellant was also found guilty under Section 323, IPC, but in rny opinion no separate sentence is necessary and. thus, no separate sentence under this Court is awarded. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as indicated above. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.