JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.1.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 188 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned 8th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the appellants guilty under Section 304A IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for two years and also directed appellant Jugeshwar Dom to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and appellants Sudeshi, Bishlal and Bigawan were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment they were further directed to undergo RI for one year. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 22.11.1986 at about 3.30 P.M. appellants Bigawan, Jageshwar, Bishlal and Sudeshi were offering wine to Suresh Dom (deceased) at the residence of Bigawan. Suresh never took wine prior to that day. Thereafter all the four appellants forcibly took him out from the house of Bigawan and brought him on the road. In the meantime a truck was coming and all the four appellants threw Suresh on the road before the speeding truck. The truck crushed Suresh and all the four appellants fled away from the P. O. Suresh died in the way while he was being taken to hospital for treatment. The informant gave the faro beyan at 6.30 PM on that very day. A case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No. 731/86 was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and I.O. after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and cognizance in the case was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions and learned 8th Additional Judicial Commissioner recorded' the evidence both oral and documentary and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 3. Prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses. PW 1 is Radha Domin. She is wife of deceased Suresh Dom. She claims to be an eye witness. P.W.2 is Lallapati Ram. He has been declared hostile. PW 3 is Tulsi Domin. She is an eye witness. PW 4 is Gulab Dom. PW 5 is a doctor, who examined the deceased. PW 6 is a part 1.0. of the case. PW 7 is a formal witness. 4. PW 1 is Radha Domin. P.W.2 is Lallapati Ram. He has been declared hostile. PW 3 is Tulsi Domin. She is an eye witness. PW 4 is Gulab Dom. PW 5 is a doctor, who examined the deceased. PW 6 is a part 1.0. of the case. PW 7 is a formal witness. 4. PW 1 is Radha Domin. According to this witness, in the evening when she was in her village, her husband was forced to drink by appellants and they brought him to road easily and one of appellants caught Suresh and three other appellants threw him before a speeding truck and Suresh was crushed by the speeding truck. Further according to her, he died in the way to hospital. She claims that she was there when Suresh was crushed by the truck and she was on the other side of the road. The truck driver fled away toward Kanke road after the occurrence. According to this witness, appellants reside nearby the house of this witness. Her husband never used to drink wine but on the date of occurrence he took wine under the pressure of appellants. According to this witness when her husband was taking wine, she was there and where she enquired why he is taking wine then he replied that he is giving wine to the appellants to drink. 5. PW 3 is Tulsi Domin. She stated that on the alleged date of occurrence all the four appellants took her brother to their house and gave him wine to drink and at about 3 PM they brought her brother to nearby road and threw him before a speeding truck coming from Bariatu, as a result of which Suresh was crushed by the speeding truck. She was carrying Suresh in a Tempo and he died in the way to hospital. She also stated that her brother never took wine and on that very day appellants forced him to take wine. 6.PW 4 is Gulab Dom. He is informant of the case. He stated that all the four appellants forced Suresh to take wine at the residence of Bigawan. She also stated that her brother never took wine and on that very day appellants forced him to take wine. 6.PW 4 is Gulab Dom. He is informant of the case. He stated that all the four appellants forced Suresh to take wine at the residence of Bigawan. According to this witness, Suresh never used to take wine and at the relevant time he was sitting under a tree by the side of road and he sawall the appellants caught Suresh, brought him near the road and when a truck was coming from the side of Bariatu, all the appellants threw Suresh before the speeding truck, as a result of which Suresh was crushed by the speeding truck and when he was being taken to hospital, he died in the way to hospital. He said that when he reached there appellants fled away and truck driver also fled away. 7. PW 5 is a doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Suresh and found the following injuries:- "(i) Grazing abrasion all over the front of chest and both arms with a lacerated wound extended from left shoulder to right nipple 3" x 4" x bone deep. (ii) Lacerated wound 3" x 2" x skin deep over left temporal area with avulsion of the left ear. (iii) Lacerated wound 2" x 1" x upper bone outer to the left eye. (iv) Lacerated wound 'U' shaped 3 %" x 1.4" x upper bone over the right chin. (v) Abrasion 3" x 3,4" over down part of the front of left arm. On dissection blood clots were present under the skin 'left chest wall and the right lower chest hall. Left collar bone and left 1st to 6th ribs were found fractured interiorly. Left lung was lacerated. Lower part of the neck muscles were lacerated and the left jugular vein was torn. Right point rib was fractured interiorly. Spleen was torn to tries. Shout 600 ml blood in clots was found in the abdominal cavity. Blood and clots were found in the left chest cavity also. Upper respiratory vessels were congested and full of fine while froth. The left vertical was printed "x". Both sides of the heart and urinary bladder were empty. The stomach was full of 1/3 of party material and emitted a smell of alcohol. Skull and brain were normal." 8. Blood and clots were found in the left chest cavity also. Upper respiratory vessels were congested and full of fine while froth. The left vertical was printed "x". Both sides of the heart and urinary bladder were empty. The stomach was full of 1/3 of party material and emitted a smell of alcohol. Skull and brain were normal." 8. According to opinion of the doctor, the death resulted from combined effect of asphyxia and shocks due to hard and blunt force impact. Such injuries are quite common in road traffic accidents. These may be possible by hit of speeding truck. Time elapsed since death was 18 to 36 hours. 9. PW 6 is a witness, who has proved certain documents. 10. PW 7 is a formal witness, who has also proved some documents. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants as amicus curiae submitted that evidence, which has been led on behalf of the prosecution, is that a person has been thrown before a speeding truck but the learned court below has levelled common allegation and even framed the charge under Section 304A IPC because in the opinion of the learned court below the act on their behalf was rash and negligent one and learned counsel also pointed out that sentence cannot be enhanced under Section 386 Cr. RC. in view of the fact that no appeal has been preferred by the State and court, on its own motion, cannot act beyond Section 386 Cr. RC. Section 386 Cr. RC. in view of the fact that no appeal has been preferred by the State and court, on its own motion, cannot act beyond Section 386 Cr. RC. Section 386 Cr. P.C. is quoted hereinbelow:- "386.-Powers of the Appellate Court.-After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may- (a) In an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law; (b) in an appeal from a conviction- (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or . (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same; (c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence- (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent to try the offence, or (ii) alter. the finding maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same; (d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order; (3) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper. Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement: Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence by the Court passing the order or sentence under appeal." 12. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the court cannot suo motu enhance the sentence but can direct for retrial and can also enhance sentence only after giving accused an opportunity of hearing and in the instant case no notice has been issued to the accused to show cause as to why punishment should not be enhanced. 13. From perusal of evidence on record, it appears that witnesses have stated that Suresh Dom was taken by all the four appellants to the house of appellant Bigawan and he was forced to take wine, although from the evidence of witnesses, it appears that Suresh Dom was not in a habit to drink wine. There is contradictory evidence on the point because his sister (PW 3) has stated that he used to take wine. From perusal of post mortem report it does not appear that this deceased was run over by a speeding truck, although prosecution has made out a case that when truck was coming with high speed from Bariatu side, all of a sudden, all the four appellants threw the body of, Suresh Dom in front of the speeding truck and Suresh Dom was crushed under the wheels of the truck, but from the post mortem report it appears that, the deceased received injuries by a truck but not in the manner as made out by the prosecution. It appears that deceased was dashed by the speeding truck and all the injuries, which have been found on the body of the deceased, may be by crushing a speeding truck, since all the appellants including the deceased were in drunken condition and Suresh Dom, as he was not in the habit of drinking wine and he was heavily drunk on that day, he was not in his senses and while crossing the road he was dashed by the speeding truck and since all the four appellants were with the deceased, hence it was presumed that they have thrown the body of deceased before a speeding truck. 14. In that view of the matter I find that prosecution has not been able to prove the occurrence in the manner as alleged by it beyond all reasonable doubts. 15. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Since they are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.