Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Shri B.K. Sinha 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 118 of 1990 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 304, Part I, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years. 2. The prosecution case in short is that one Munni Purty lodged FIR claiming therein that on 17.9.1989 at about 8 p.m. the Informants Dewar Sudan Purty aged about 60 years had an altercation with his son Sukra Purty, appellant. Sudan Purty was telling his son Sukra Purty that his Mama is not available and there is no whereabout. On this the appellant became anger and he lifted Angarh from Gohal and started beating Sudan Purty causing injuries, as a result of which Sudan Purty died. The informant tried to save the deceased but the appellant continued assaulting his father. It is claimed that the appellant committed murder of his father. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged under Section 302, IPC. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge- sheet against the appellant. It is stated that the husband of Informant and deceased Sudan Purty were own brothers and both separated by metes and bounds. Sudan Purty married five times. From his first wife, a daughter was born and from the second wife, Sukra Purty, the appellant was born and from third wife, there was no issue. 3. The appellant appeared before the Sessions Court and the charge under Section 302, IPC was framed, to which the appellant denied the allegation. The defence case as alleged that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has committed no offence as well as there was no intention for causing the death of Sudan Purty. 4. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after considering the evidence on record, the lower Court convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment dated 24.3.1994. By feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal from jail, as the appellant has already been in custody since 20.9.1989 and it is claimed that the lower Court committed error in convicting the appellant without appreciating the evidence on record properly. 5. Altogether, five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove its case. By feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal from jail, as the appellant has already been in custody since 20.9.1989 and it is claimed that the lower Court committed error in convicting the appellant without appreciating the evidence on record properly. 5. Altogether, five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove its case. PW 1 is the doctor who held post-mortem on the dead-body of Sudan purty and found the following ante mortem injuries : (i) Thoracic rib 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 fractured at multiple side on both sides. (ii) Evidence of contusion with bluish colourisation of the skin over the chest detected at multiple sides. (iii) Blood in the chest cavity. Both lungs fractured. (iv) Heart Chambers empty. (v) Brain intact, abdominal organs intact, stomach and Bladder empty. According to the doctor, death was caused due to injuries mentioned above and leading to shock and haemorhage. The injuries are grievous in nature caused by hard blunt substance. 6 PW 2, Balmiki Prasad Singh, the Investigating Officer claimed to have inspected the place of occurrence. He also proved the FIR, Ext. 2. PW 3, Munni, the informant stated that the appellant, Sukra Purty assaulted Sudan Purty by Argada, as a result to which her Dewar, Sudan Purty died. She further stated that the villagers also came there after the occurrence. According to her, the appellant, Sukra Purty is the son of the deceased. There was an altercation before the assault. PW 4, Bhadura Soran Manki also stated that the appellant, Sukra Purty assaulted his father, as a result of which he died. He claimed to have visited the police station at the relevant time and the FIR was lodged in his presence. He put his signature on the FIR PW 5 has been tendered by the prosecution. No any other witness has been examined. 7. The appellant/accused was also examined under Section 313, Cr PC and he denied the allegation. The Informant, PW 3 can be said to be independent and competent witness and she consistently supported the prosecution case. According to her, there was some altercation with the appellant and the deceased and thereafter the appellant assaulted the deceased with Angda, which is lathi like wood. The doctor also opined about the injury caused by hard blunt substance. 8. The Informant, PW 3 can be said to be independent and competent witness and she consistently supported the prosecution case. According to her, there was some altercation with the appellant and the deceased and thereafter the appellant assaulted the deceased with Angda, which is lathi like wood. The doctor also opined about the injury caused by hard blunt substance. 8. It is true that there was no premeditated plan for committing murder of the deceased, rather the occurrence took place at the spur of moment. There was also no any animosity with the deceased and the appellant gave blow by lathi like wood which cannot be said to be a deadly weapon. The post-mortem report Ext. 1, further shows that no injury was caused on the vital part of the body like head and as such I find that the appellant had no intention to cause death of Sudan Purty. The deceased was also an old man and so the injury caused by the lathi like wood caused the death of deceased and I further find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part I of the IPC. There was no intention on the part of the appellant for causing the death of the deceased and as such the offence under Section 302, IPC is in no manner attracted against the alleged act of the appellant. I further find that the prosecution has established doubt as already held by the lower Court. 9. So far sentence is concerned, it appears that the appellant has already been in custody since 20.9.1989 and he has been sentenced to R.I. for 10 years. In this way, he has already served the sentence. Moreover, I find that lower Court has rightly passed the order of sentence against the appellant which does not require to be interfered with, at this stage. 10. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the evidence on record, I find and hold that the lower Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part I of the IPC. Thus, I do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court is here by affirmed.