JUDGMENT : B.K. Nayak, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.11.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 364 of 1995 convicting appellant no. 1-Chairman @ Niranjan Sahoo u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and convicting appellant no.-2 Chandal @ Manoranjan Sahoo u/s 323 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for the period which he was already in custody during trial. 2. The appellants along with their mother, Satyabhama Sahoo faced the session trial. Shown of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 08.11.1994 at about 7.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. a co-villager, namely, Adaitya Sahoo was talking with deceased-Doli Dei, her daughters and son. At that time accused-Satyabhama Sahoo (Already acquitted by the trial Court), who is the wife of brother of the husband of the deceased and adjoining neighbour, called Adaitya Sahoo. Since Adaitya Sahoo did not respond to the call of Satyabhama Sahoo, the accused persons started abusing him and also the family members of the deceased in obscene language. At that time, P.W. 6-Biranchi Sahoo came from outside and hearing the abuses went to the roof of his house since the accused persons were abusing from their adjoining roof. Appellant-Manoranjan Sahoo then gave a push to P.W. 6, who fell down from the roof and sustained injuries. Then his mother (deceased) went to the roof and raised protest as to why the accused persons pushed P.W. 6 whereupon accused-Satyabhama handed over a Katari to appellant-Niranjan Sahoo instigating him to finish the deceased. Accordingly, accused-Niranjan Sahoo dealt a Katari blow on the head of the deceased, who sustained severe bleeding injury and fell down. Then the daughters and other son of the deceased, brought her from roof to the ground and then shifted her and P.W. 6 Judum (Zilinda) Hospital, where the doctor gave them initial treatment and referred to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital. The deceased was taken to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to the injuries on 11.11.1994. On her death, P.W. 10 came to the village and reported the matter to the police whereupon investigation was taken up. The deceased was taken to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to the injuries on 11.11.1994. On her death, P.W. 10 came to the village and reported the matter to the police whereupon investigation was taken up. On the report of the doctor of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, A.S.I. of Mangalabag Police Station registered U.P. Case No. 528 of 1994, held inquest over the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination. Thereafter, having received intimation from the O.I.C., Narasinghpur Police Station he sent original documents to him. In course of investigation the I.O. examined witnesses, effected seizure of different incriminating materials including the weapon of offence, i.e., Katari and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 3. The plea of the accused persons is a denial of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. The further plea is that there was quarrel between the two families and Biranchi (P.W. 6) went to the roof with a Katari and while he was about to assault the accused persons, the husband of Satyabhama pushed him, as a result of which, he fell down and in the process he collided with the deceased and his Katari came in contact with her while she was climbing up the stair case in order to come to the roof. It is stated that there is a counter case against P.W. 6 and others for assaulting accused-Satyabhama and Niranjan. 4. In order to prove the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are seizure witnesses. P.W. 5 is a post occurrence witness. P.W. 6 is an injured witness. P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the daughters of the deceased. P.W. 10 is the other son of the deceased, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W. 10 also lodged the F.I.R. P.W. 9 is the husband of the deceased and a post occurrence witness. P.W. 11 is also a post occurrence witness. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are respectively the Amin and the Scientific Officer, who visited the spot. P.W. 14 is the doctor of Judum (Zilinda) Hospital, who initially treated the deceased and P.W. 6. P.W. 16 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws. 15 and 17 are the Investigating Officers. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are respectively the Amin and the Scientific Officer, who visited the spot. P.W. 14 is the doctor of Judum (Zilinda) Hospital, who initially treated the deceased and P.W. 6. P.W. 16 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws. 15 and 17 are the Investigating Officers. In defence the accused persons examined the A.S.I. of Mangalabag Police Station only as D.W. 1. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court while acquitting accused-Satyabhama, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 5. In assailing the impugned judgment the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions: (i) The evidence of so called eyewitnesses, who are also interested witnesses, is full of inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions and, therefore, it has no grain of truth and should be discarded. (ii) In view of the contradiction in the evidence of injured witness (P.W. 6) with regard to assault by appellant-Manoranjan on him, the said appellant cannot be convicted u/s 323 of the I.P.C. (iii) There being substantial delay in lodging the F.I.R. (Ext. 4) and the informant (P.W. 10) having admitted to have lodged another F.I.R. (Ext. A), which was available on the record, the prosecution case must be held to be highly suspicious. (iv) Alternatively, in the event the Court comes to the conclusion that accused-Niranjan is the assailant of the deceased, keeping in view the background of the occurrence and the fact that only one solitary blow was dealt by the blunt side of a sharp edged weapon, he can at best be held liable u/s 304, Part-11 and not u/s 302 of the I.P.C. Mr. Rath, learned Additional Standing counsel, on the other hand, strenuously contended that the discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, if any, are very minor in nature and they do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case with regard to the complicity of the present appellants in the crime concerned. The eye witnesses to the occurrence being natural witnesses, who were present on the scene of occurrence, there is no reason to discard their evidence merely because there are some minor contradictions in their evidence. The eye witnesses to the occurrence being natural witnesses, who were present on the scene of occurrence, there is no reason to discard their evidence merely because there are some minor contradictions in their evidence. It is his further contention that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the facts and circumstances of the case has been properly explained and, therefore, it is not fatal to the prosecution. With regard to the existence of another F.I.R. (Ext. A), it is his contention that Ext. 4 does not contain any improved, embellished or coloured version than the contents of ext. A and, therefore, the defence would not be entitled to any benefit for the existence of Ext. A. 6. We heard learned counsel for the parties in extenso and scrutinized the evidence on record carefully and meticulously. With regard to injuries sustained by P.W. 6, it is the prosecution case that on his arrival in the house P.W. 6 found the accused persons abusing Adaitya Sahoo and the family members of P.W. 6 in obscene language and, therefore, when he went to the roof and raised protest to such abuses, he was pushed by appellant-Manoranjan as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. Although, consistently P.Ws. 7 and 8, who are the sisters of P.W. 6, and P.W. 10, who is the brother of P.W. 6, have stated in their evidence that accused-Manoranjan pushed P.W. 6 from the roof, during the enquiry to the U.D. Case by D.W. 1, A.S.I. of Mangalabag Police Station, P.W. 6 himself stated before D.W. 1 that it was appellant-Niranjan and not Manoranjan, who pushed him, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. P.W. 6 being the injured himself, in view of such contradiction in his evidence a doubt arises as to which of the appellants pushed him. P.W. 6 having not implicated Manoranjan as the accused, who pushed him, in his earliest statement made before D.W. 1, we extend benefit of doubt to appellant-Manoranjan and hold him not guilty of the offence u/s 323 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, set aside his conviction and sentence for that offence. 7. With regard to the assault on the deceased, it is the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 that after P.W. 6 sustained injury being pushed down, they brought him to their verandah and nourished him. 7. With regard to the assault on the deceased, it is the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 that after P.W. 6 sustained injury being pushed down, they brought him to their verandah and nourished him. Seeing the condition of P.W. 6, the deceased went to the roof and challenged the accused persons as to why they pushed P.W. 6. There upon appellant-Niranjan brought a Katari from accused-Satyabhama and gave a blow on the head of the deceased. On receipt of the blow, the deceased shouted that Niranjan killed her and fell down on the roof. Thereafter, P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 went to the roof and brought down the deceased. After such occurrence their father (P.W. 9) came whereafter they carried the deceased and P.W. 6 in a bullock cart with the help of some villagers including P. W.5 to Judum (Zilinda) Hospital for treatment. On the advice of the doctor of Judum (Zilinda) Hospital (P.W. 14), the deceased was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack where she succumbed to the injury on 11.11.1994. 8. P.W. 14, the doctor of Judum (Zilinda) Hospital, who examined the deceased and gave her preliminary treatment, found one split leceration incised wound of size 8 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. down to the bone on the left side of head and two abrasions, one situated on the dorsal aspect of left elbow and the other on the left scapular region. P.W. 14 reserved his opinion with regard to the head injury awaiting City Scan and X-ray of the head. It is his version that the injury could have been caused by a blunt weapon. Cross-examination of P.W. 14 reveals that when he received the injury requisition from the I.O., he prepared the injury report vide Ext. 10 with reference to the bed head ticket as the patient had by then already been shifted to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on his reference. To a Court question, he has admitted that while preparing Ext. 10 he has not referred to any X-ray plate. He has further stated that he made surgical interference and put seven stitches to the head injury of the deceased. P.W. 16, the Asst. To a Court question, he has admitted that while preparing Ext. 10 he has not referred to any X-ray plate. He has further stated that he made surgical interference and put seven stitches to the head injury of the deceased. P.W. 16, the Asst. Prof, of F.M.T. Department, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased found the surgical stitched wound over the left frontoparietal region of 8 cm long with 7 stitches situation 5 cm above base of left ear starting from a point 6 cm above the lateral end of the left eye and he also found two abrasions which had also been found by P.W. 14. P.W. 16 found a linear fracture of the base of the skull in left mid cranial fosa of 4 cm long involving the rector wing of sphenoid bone and a piece of skull bone had been surgically removed over an area of 4 cm x 6 cm which was covered by extra dural blood clot. There was extra dural haematoma covering the whole of left side frontparietal and temporal region over an area of 15 cm. x 8 cm. x 1 to 15 cm. thickness. There was cerebral haemorrhage in the substance of callous. The injury was ante mortem in nature and could have been caused by blunt weapon. The death of the deceased was due to cranio cerebral injury to head and was consistent with deliberate violence on the left side of the head and was fatal in ordinary course of nature. Evidence of P.W. 16 suggests that the head injury of the nature sustained by the deceased could not have been caused by simple fall. 9. The ocular evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 regarding the infliction of a blow by appellant-Niranjan by means of a Katari on the head of the deceased has been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that there is discrepancy and contradiction in the evidence of such witnesses with regard to the handing over of the Katari by acquitted accused-Satyabhama to appellant-Niranjan. Of course, there are some inconsistencies and contradictions with regard to that aspect. Of course, there are some inconsistencies and contradictions with regard to that aspect. While P.W. 7 deposed that the deceased having challenged the accused persons on the roof as to why they pushed P.W. 6, appellant-Niranjan brought a Katari from accused-Satyabhama and dealt a blow on the head of the deceased with the same, the testimony of P.Ws. 8 and 10 reveals that Satyabhama handed over the Katari to Niranjan asking him to finish the deceased. Thus, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 7 on one hand and that P.Ws. 8 and 10 on the other with regard to the role played by accused-Satyabhama. Similarly, the F.I.R. (Ext. 4) is silent about the alleged role played by accused-Satyabhama which was confronted to P.W. 10. in his cross-examination, which he admitted. The benefit arising out of such inconsistency and contradiction has already been extended to the defence by the trial Court by acquitting accused-Satyabhama of the charge under Sections 302/114 of the I.P.C. However, inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of the ocular witnesses, as seen above, cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity of the witnesses with regard to the assault made by appellant-Niranjan on the deceased. In Bur Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab; (2008) 41 OCR (SC) 817, it has been held that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound principle of law and not applicable in India. It is trite that grain must be separated from chaff that is to say, the part of the evidence of a witness which appears cogent and trustworthy shall be separated from falsehood and can be accepted by the Court. The evidence of ocular witnesses is quite clear and cogent to the effect that accused-Niranjan dealt one blow by a Katari on the head of the deceased, who fell down on the roof having received the injury. Referring to the evidence of the ocular witnesses, particularly that of P.W. 8 in her cross-examination to the effect that while they were nourishing P.W. 6 on the verandah, the deceased went to the roof and as soon as she protested she was assaulted by means of a Katari, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the ocular witnesses did not follow the deceased to the roof at the heels of the deceased they could not have seen the occurrence. The contention has no force inasmuch as nothing has been bought out in cross-examination of these witnesses nor there is anything on record to show that the place of occurrence on the roof was not visible from the Verandah where the witnesses were nourishing P.W. 6. Apart from seeking the assault made by Niranjan, it is also stated by P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 that on behalf assaulted the deceased raised a cry that Niranjan killed her which these witnesses also heard. Nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to disbelieve this aspect of the evidence. Apparently, these witnesses being the inmates of the house and they being all through present when abuses were hurled by the accused persons from the roof to them, they must be expected to be cognizant of all that was happening in course of the incident. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 about the assault made by the appellant-Niranjan on the head of the deceased. 10. Veracity of the ocular witnesses has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants stating that in course of the occurrence accused Satyabhama (since acquitted) and Manoranjan sustained injuries and that the defence plea is more probable. As per the defence plea while the quarrel was going on between the deceased and the family of the accused, P.W. 6 went to the roof with a Katari and assaulted accused-Satyabhama and Niranjan and then the father of Niranjan pushed P.W. 6 as a result of which he fell down on his stair case and in the process he collided against the deceased, who was then climbing up the stairs and in the result she sustained the injury. It is also the defence plea that there is a counter case arising out of the same occurrence. Except putting suggestions to P.Ws. 6, 7 and 10 about the defence plea which have been denied, there is no - evidence in support of such plea. Learned counsel for the appellants banks upon the evidence of a post occurrence witness, P.W. 5, who had seen P.W. 6 and the deceased lying in their house in injured condition. The further evidence of P.W. 5 is that he went to the house of the accused persons and found Satyabhama and Manoranjan had sustained some injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants banks upon the evidence of a post occurrence witness, P.W. 5, who had seen P.W. 6 and the deceased lying in their house in injured condition. The further evidence of P.W. 5 is that he went to the house of the accused persons and found Satyabhama and Manoranjan had sustained some injuries. P.W. 11 stated in his cross-examination that both the family of the accused and the family of the deceased have a common passage and that he saw accused Satyabhama in that passage, who was limping at that time. Neither of P.Ws. 5 and 11 has stated that injuries of Satyabhama and Manoranjan were caused by P.W. 6. It appears that no F.I.R. by the accused persons has been lodged against P.W. 6 or any of his family members. The I.O.(P.W. 15) has stated in his cross-examination that on 12.11.1994 he had visited the house of the accused persons and found accused-Satyabhama in her house with a fractured leg and on his query she disclosed that she dropped down from the roof and sustained the injury. The I.O. has also specifically denied about any counter case initiated by the accused persons. The defence filed the certified copy of order No. 23 dated 24.08.1996 passed in G.R. Case No. 133 of 1994 by the learned J.M.F.C, Narasinghpur which has been marked as Ext. C. The said order reveals that after enquiry u/s 202 of the Cr. P.C., the Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Sections 323/506/34 of the I.P.C. against the present P.Ws. 6, 9 and 10, namely, Biranchi Sahoo, Janardan Sahoo and Narendra Sahoo. It appears that on a complaint the said cognizance has been taken, but there is nothing on record to suggest as to who is complainant and what was the date of occurrence of that case. There is no material to come to a conclusion that the said case arose as a counter case, out of the present occurrence. It is, therefore, clear that there is no iota of evidence with regard to the defence plea about P.W. 6 assaulting and causing injuries to accused-Satyabhama and Manoranjan. The other part of the defence plea stands equally falsified in view of the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 15) and the Scientific Officer of the District Forensic Science Laboratory, Cuttack (P.W. 13). The other part of the defence plea stands equally falsified in view of the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 15) and the Scientific Officer of the District Forensic Science Laboratory, Cuttack (P.W. 13). On the requisition of P.W. 15, the Scientific Officer (P.W. 13) on 13.11.1994 visited the scene of occurrence, i.e., the roof of the house of the deceased which had been guarded by the police. On examination P.W. 13 found blood droplets and blood spotting marks on the cemented roof of the house of the deceased. He collected the saline extract of blood stains from the roof on a gauge cloth and handed over the same to the I.O. along with control gauge cloth with instruction to send the same for chemical examination. P.W. 13 also took photographs of the scene of occurrence vide Exts. 7, 8 and 9, negatives of which have been proved as Exts, 7/1, 8/1 and 9/1. He has proved his report Ext. 6. It is no body's case that the blood droplets and patches detected on the roof of the house belonged to any one other than the deceased. The defence plea is that being pushed by the father of the appellants, P.W. 6 fell down in the stair case and sustained injury and in the process dashed against his mother (deceased) who was then climbing up the stairs. If the occurrence would have taken place as suggested by the defence, no blood droplets and patches would have been found on the roof of the house. Of course, the Scientific Officer has found some blood stains on the stair case of the house of the deceased that led to the roof, but those stains could be reletable to the deceased inasmuch as the deceased having sustained bleeding injury being assaulted by the accused-Niranjan on the roof she was brought down by P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 and the process some blood might have dropped on the stair case. The presence of blood droplets and patches on the roof of the house is fully consistent with the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted by appellant-Niranjan on the roof of the house where she sustained injuries and fell down. The detection of blood droplets on the roof of the house is a circumstance which fully corroborated the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 lending assurance to their credibility. 11. The detection of blood droplets on the roof of the house is a circumstance which fully corroborated the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 lending assurance to their credibility. 11. The weapon of offence in question, i.e., the Katari (M.O.I) was recovered and seized by the I.O. from the house of the accused persons under seizure list (Ext. 1) on 12.11.1994 in presence of P.Ws. 1 and 4. The Katari had some stains of blood on it. The seized Katari was also examined by Scientific Officer (P.W. 13), who found blood stains on it and returned the same to the I.O. to send to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The sample blood of the deceased, the saline extracts of the blood collected by the Scientific Officer in gauge cloth from the roof of the house and the Katari seized by the I.O. were chemically examined in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar being forwarded by the learned J.M.F.C, Narasinghpur. The chemical examination report vide Ext. 6 reveals that the sample blood and the saline extract of the blood found on the roof of the house were of Group 'A' of human origin. The Serologist has also found human blood on the Katari (M.O.I), though he could not opine its group because of deterioration. The presence of blood on the roof of the house having the group belonging to the deceased and the presence of human blood on the weapon of offence fully corroborate and lend further credence to the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10. 12. Admittedly, the F.I.R. has been lodged by P.W. 10 four days after the occurrence. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that there is a police Outpost at a few hundred meters away from Judum (Zilinda) Hospital where the deceased and P.W. 6 were initially treated and that none of the family members of the deceased reported the matter then at the Outpost. It is also his contention that though admittedly P.W. 9, the husband of the deceased did not accompany the deceased to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and was all along available at the village he did not go to the police station to report the matter and, therefore, the prosecution case must be viewed with suspicion. It is also his contention that though admittedly P.W. 9, the husband of the deceased did not accompany the deceased to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and was all along available at the village he did not go to the police station to report the matter and, therefore, the prosecution case must be viewed with suspicion. P.W. 9 has explained in his evidence that he got shocked due to the injuries sustained by his wife and son and as such he was lying in his house and could not report the matter to the police. There is no reason not to accept the explanation of P.W. 9, who is an old man and who had also no direct knowledge about the occurrence. While the deceased and P.W. 6 were receiving treatment, it is in the evidence that the other family members, viz; P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 had accompanied the deceased and continued to stay with her at S.C.B. medical College and Hospital, Cuttack till she succumbed to her injury on 11.11.1994. Thereafter, P.W. 10 returned to the village and on the arrival of P.W. 15, O.I.C. of Narasinghpur Police Station he lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 4). The primary concern of P.Ws. 7 to 10 was to give treatment to P.W. 6 and the deceased and, therefore, they were not expected to report the matter at the Outpost without attending to the deceased and P.W. 6. Nothing has been shown from the F.I.R. that it contained any exaggerated or embellished version. Considering the clear, cogent and credible evidence of the ocular witnesses which stand corroborated by the medical evidence and other circumstances and keeping in view the explanation offered by P.W. 9, the delay in lodging of F.I.R. cannot be treated to be fatal to the prosecution. The informant as well as the I.O. during their cross-examination were confronted with Ext. A., another F.I.R; which has been addressed to the I.O. P.W. 10 on confrontation has admitted to have written the said F.I.R. (Ext. A), but he has specifically stated that the F.I.R. which is lodged before P.W. 15 is Ext. 4. Both P.W. 10 and P.W. 15 plead their ignorance as to how Ext. A found its way to the case record. On careful perusal of Ext. A, it appears that it is dated 12.11.1994 on which date Ext. 4 had been lodged. A), but he has specifically stated that the F.I.R. which is lodged before P.W. 15 is Ext. 4. Both P.W. 10 and P.W. 15 plead their ignorance as to how Ext. A found its way to the case record. On careful perusal of Ext. A, it appears that it is dated 12.11.1994 on which date Ext. 4 had been lodged. On comparison, it is also found that the contents of Ext. A are not in variance with the contents of Ext. 4 in such circumstances, the mere availability of Ext. A on the case record cannot be a ground to suspect the authenticity of Ext. 4 or to doubt the credibility of the prosecution story. 13. In the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that it is appellant-Niranjan, who assaulted and injured the deceased that ultimately resulted in her death. 14. As to the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is found that the occurrence took place in course of a quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons as because Adaitya Sahoo, who was in conversation with the deceased was forbidden by the latter to go to the house of the accused persons when accused-Satyabhama called him. In course of the quarrel, the occurrence has taken place when the deceased went to the roof and challenged the accused persons. It is also seen that appellant-Niranjan has only dealt a solitary blow, evidently by the blunt site of the Katari on the head of the deceased, and has made no attempt to deal further blows, nor has used the sharp side of the weapon. Apparently, there was no premeditation on his part to cause the death of the deceased and that a solitary blow was inflicted for which no intention to kill the deceased can be imputed to him though, he can be said to have had the knowledge that the blow dealt with force was likely to cause death. In the circumstances, appellant-Niranjan cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C., though he is liable under the second part of Section 304 of the I.P.C. 15. In the circumstances, appellant-Niranjan cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C., though he is liable under the second part of Section 304 of the I.P.C. 15. In the light of the discussions made above, the conviction and sentence of appellant no.-1 Niranjan Sahoo u/s 302 of the I.P.C. is set aside the instead he is convicted under the second part of Section 304 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. The conviction and sentence passed against appellant no. 2-Manoranjan Sahoo u/s 323 of the I.P.C. is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. PRADIP MOHANTY, J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Allowed