JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - This Government Appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal recorded by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No. 64/21 of 1987. 2. Prosecution case is that on 10.12.1986 there was quarrel between Jhala Naik (PW-8) and the wife of the accused Birasa. In that quarrel Etwari Naik (PW-7) was separated from the clutches of the wife of the accused. At about 6.30 PM while the informant Etwa Nayak (PW 6) and his wife Jhala Nayak (P.W-8) were in front of their Jhumpudi (house) the accused arrived there. He had put a Chadar covering his hands. He pulled out his hands and then it was seen that he was armed with knife. He declared to do away with the persons who manhandled his wife. With that declaration he dealt knife blows to PW-6 the informant, who sustained injuries on his elbow and also in the process of avoiding one of the blows that-hit and injured the belly of two and a half years old child, who was then in his arMs. PW -6 was compelled to put that injured child on the ground and fight with the accused. The other local residents also came to the spot of occurrence and seeing them the accused fled away. PW -6 and his injured child (the deceased) were brought to Ispat General Hospital and on 19.12.1986 the child succumbed to injuries while being continuing as an indoor patient in that hospital. Therefore, the case which the police have initially registered for the offence u/s 307/324 of I.P.C. was investigated as a case of murder and charge sheet was submitted accordingly. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, it was taken up for trial by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge for the offence u/s 302/324 of I.P.C. and claimed for trial. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and relied on the documents, vide Exts. 1 to 20. Defence did not adduce any evidence. The weapon of offence was marked as M.O.-I and some of the wearing apparels were marked as M. Os.- II to VI. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and relied on the documents, vide Exts. 1 to 20. Defence did not adduce any evidence. The weapon of offence was marked as M.O.-I and some of the wearing apparels were marked as M. Os.- II to VI. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court, beside the informant injured PW-6, his wife PW-8, aunt-in-law PW-7,daughter of PW-7 being examined as PW-9 and PW-12, a neighbour were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. 3. Since the offence punishable u/s 302 of I.P.C. is the major offence, therefore, to ascertain the nature of the death Learned Addl. Sessions Judge referred to the evidence of the doctors examined as PWs 2, 3 and 15 and Ext. 1, the bed head ticket, Ext. 2, the inquest report, Ext. 3, the injury certificate, Exts.5, 6 and 10, the queries made by the Investigating Officer and Exts.5/ 1, 6/1 and 10/1, the opinion reports of the doctors besides Ext. 20, the post mortem report. On analysis of such evidence Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that: 7. From the medical evidence on record it is clear that the deceased succumbed to the injuries inflicted on his stomach by means of a sharp cutting weapon like knife and that the informant had also sustained injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon. Therefore, it is for consideration as to how far the prosecution has been able to substantiate the allegation against the accused that he inflicted the injuries, on the deceased and the informant. 4. It is noted here that the above quoted factual finding of the Trial Court regarding homicidal death of the child is not being challenged. On perusal of the relevant evidence, we also endorse corrections to the aforesaid finding.Therefore, a further deliberation on the aforesaid aspect is not necessary. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge perused the evidence on record and took note of the circumstances that prosecution did not lead clear evidence about the second knife, which as alleged by the eye witness that accused was holding at the time of occurrence and further the prosecution not accounting for the Chadar which the accused as per the,evidence of one of the witnesses left at the spot while escaping from the spot of occurrence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of PWs 6, 7, 8 and 9 only on the ground that they are close relatives to each other and other eyewitnesses to the occurrence did not support the prosecution case. Accordingly, Learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the benefit of doubt to the accused-and acquitted him. 6. In course of the submission, Learned Standing Counsel while placing the impugned judgment and the evidence on record vehemently criticized the approach of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge and the finding recorded by him in discarding the evidence of the eyewitnesses. According to him, the evidence of PWs-6, 7, 8 and 9 are consistent and corroborating to the medical evidences and therefore, attitude of any other witness in turning hostile to the prosecution could not have resulted in doubting their veracity because they are the kith and kin of the deceased. Accordingly, Learned Standing Counsel argues to set aside the order of acquittal and to convict the accused for the death of the deceased. Ms. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand advances argument supporting the impugned reason applied and adopted by Learned Additional Session Judge for granting benefit of doubt to the accused. She argues that what PWs 6, 7, 8 and 9 have narrated about the occurrence was not supported by any other independent witness of the locality and therefore, the Trial Court was right in its approach in discarding their evidence. 7. On due consideration of the aforesaid rival contentions of the parties and on assessment of the evidence on record, We find it proper to set aside the reasonings adopted by the Trial Court for rejecting the evidence of PWs 6, 7 8 and 9. In other words, we find that the evidences of PWs 6, 7, 8 and 9 does not suffer from falsehood and such evidences are reliable and credible in support of the occurrence alleged against the accused. We also find that such evidence of PWs 6 to 9 is corroborated by the evidence of the doctors of the Ispat General Hospital and the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination. When such independent corroboration is available to the evidence of PW 8, 6 to 9 the Trial Court was absolutely, irrationally and illogically seeking corroboration from gained over witnesses. When such independent corroboration is available to the evidence of PW 8, 6 to 9 the Trial Court was absolutely, irrationally and illogically seeking corroboration from gained over witnesses. Whether or not the other' witnesses from the locality supported the prosecution but the aforesaid independent corroboration from the doctors and the medical evidence in this case is sufficient to find the evidence of PWs 6 to 9 credible and reliable. Such evidence proves that deceased sustained the injuries because of the blow given by the accused. 8. Learned Standing Counsel argues that by the aforesaid act accused has committed offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s 304 of I.P.C. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the accused/Respondent argues that, if her contention for maintaining the order of acquittal is not accepted then on a proper analysis of the provision of Section 299 and 300 it cannot be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s 304 of I.P.C. She further argues that in view of the statement made in the FIR that the blow aimed at PW-6 being warded of by PW-6 and accidentally hit the deceased to cause the vital injury and therefore, at best it may amount to an offence u/s 304-A of I.P.C. Considering the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, we accept the contentions of accused/Respondent and accordingly on the aforesaid proved circumstances, we find him guilty of offence u/s 304-A of I.P.C. and impose sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. We find on record that accused was detained as under trial prisoner on 10.12.1986. He was acquitted on 28.12.1987 and was set at liberty. Therefore, the aforesaid period of detention be adjusted towards the aforesaid punishment. 9. The Government Appeal is accordingly allowed. The accused/Respondent shall surrender in the Trial Court within six weeks failing which the Trial Court shall secure attendance of the accused to serve rest period of sentence, if any. 10. Appeal Allowed A.K. Samantaray, J. 11. I agree Final Result : Allowed