Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 21/11/1990 in connection with Sessions Case No. 149/1985/ 183/1989, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur (Sahebganj) convicted the appellants under S. 304 Part II IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years each. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in short is that on 7-11-1983, while the husband of the Informant was in the house of his cousin brother, the appellants came there and asked her husband, Chotka Tudu that Dobe Marandi, one of the appellants got the decree of the land and, therefore, he should leave the land but Chotka Tudu started favouring Debi Marandi and thereafter the accused persons/appellants started assaulting Chotka Tudu by fist and slaps and thereafter her husband Chotka Tudu became unconscious and he was taken to his house and got him treated by village doctor but her husband died. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged under S. 304 IPC. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet. The appellants appeared before the Sessions Judge and accordingly charge was framed to which they pleaded not guilty. ( 3 ) PW-1 stated in his evidence that the appellants assaulted Chotka Tudu with fists and slaps and there was land disputes between the parties from before. PW-3 is the widow of the deceased, who stated that she was informed by one Geda Tudu about the incidence and he told her that the appellants assaulted her husband. She deposed clearly that her husband was treated by the village doctor. PWs 5, 7 and 8 are the witnesses on Inquest Report and formal FIR. P. W.-6 is the doctor who held post mortem and found three abrasion on the person of the deceased, which are as follows : (I) Abrasion on right Igomatic bone 1" x 1/2" about 11/2" intent of right ear. (ii) Abrasion on Left side of the left eye 1" x 1/2". (iii) Abrison on top of left shoulder 1" x 1/2". The cause of death, however, could not be ascertained. ( 4 ) THE witnesses examined clearly deposed that Chhotka Tudu was assaulted with fists and slaps by the appellants. (ii) Abrasion on Left side of the left eye 1" x 1/2". (iii) Abrison on top of left shoulder 1" x 1/2". The cause of death, however, could not be ascertained. ( 4 ) THE witnesses examined clearly deposed that Chhotka Tudu was assaulted with fists and slaps by the appellants. The doctor found three abrasions on the person of the deceased as well as the doctor opined in clear terms that the case of death could be ascertained. The widow of the deceased was also definite in her deposition that her husband was treated in the house by the village doctor and the said village doctor has not been examined by the prosecution. There appears nothing on the record to show that the appellants assaulted the deceased having knowledge resulting the death of the Chotka Tudu. There is enmity between the parties from before and the deceased was also in the drunken stage at the relevant time as well as the occurrence does not show about premeditation rather it was a sudden fight and not any lethal weapon was used at the relevant time. The injury caused said to be simple in nature and also not on the vital part of the body. There is nothing specific or definite coming forward to show that the deceased died due to said injuries and the injured Chotka Tudu was treated in the house by the village doctor and the deceased died after five days of occurrence which itself gives suspicion about the death due to said injuries. ( 5 ) THUS, it is evident that the injury caused sufficiently attracted for the offence under S. 323 IPC and not under S. 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) IN the result, I find that the prosecution has established the charge under S. 323 IPC against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and for which the appellants are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The appellants are on bail and as such their bail bonds are cancelled. The court below is directed to take appropriate steps for their arrest so as to serve the rest of the sentences accordingly. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed with the modification in sentence only, as indicated above. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .