JUDGMENT : S. PUJAHARI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.160/37 of 1990 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) for commission of offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution as placed before the trial court is that the appellant was running a hotel at Rourkela for selling refreshment and meal where the deceased Ashok Choudhury, a minor, was working as a boy. The deceased was staying in the said hotel. The deceased being a child was not attentive to his work and neglecting his work. The aforesaid fact being brought to the notice of the accused by the ‘Mistry’ (cook) of the hotel, namely, Gunpada Kundu (P.W.7), on 05.03.1990, noon, the accused dealt some slaps to the deceased for which he fell down on the ground and died. The dead body of the deceased was then kept concealed inside the hotel by the accused and later on cremated with the help of other co-accused. The aforesaid fact being brought to the notice of the I.O. (P.W.6), he suo moto drew up F.I.R. and registered a case vide Rourkela G.R.P.S. Case No.23(5) of 1990 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he collected evidence against the petitioner to have committed murder of the deceased and the other co-accused who were six in numbers to have helped him in cremating the dead body of the deceased knowing well that the deceased was murdered in order to screen the present accused from legal punishment. Charge-sheet as such was placed against the present accused under Sections 302 and against all the accused persons under Sections 201/34 of the I.P.C. Placing reliance on such charge-sheet, learned S.D.J.M., Panposh at Rourkela took cognizance of the said offence and committed the case to the Court of Session, as it was a case triable by the Court of Session. Since the aforesaid discloses a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 302 of the I.P.C. against the present accused and 201/34 of the I.P.C. against all the accused charge sheeted, they be proceeded with, was the prayer of the prosecution before the trial court. 3. Since the aforesaid discloses a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 302 of the I.P.C. against the present accused and 201/34 of the I.P.C. against all the accused charge sheeted, they be proceeded with, was the prayer of the prosecution before the trial court. 3. Placing reliance on such case of the prosecution which was supported by the materials collected during investigation, charge was framed against the present accused under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and against all the accused persons under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. by the trial court. All the accused persons including the present accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. Prosecution as such, to establish the charge against the accused persons, examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited certain documents and also material objects. 5. The present accused who had taken plea of denial and false implication, examined only one witness (D.W.1) to substantiate his defence plea. 6. Basically placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.7 the cook of the hotel and other evidence on record, the trial court while acquitting all the accused persons of the charges, returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused as stated earlier. 7. Learned counsel for the accused submits that in this case there being no credible evidence on record against the accused to have caused any voluntary hurt to the deceased inasmuch as evidence of the inimical witness P.W.7 on which great reliance has been placed, is unworthy of credence. Alternatively, it is also submitted that since the accused is an old man and the occurrence occurred many years before, he be released under the P.O. Act, if his contention in assailing the conviction is not found favour with on merit. 8. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the evidence of P.W.7 clearly indicates that the accused dealt slaps to the deceased for which he died and nothing having been brought on record indicating the fact that P.W.7 was in inimical terms with the present accused, rather, an employee of the present accused having no axe to grind, the trial court has rightly accepted his version to be credible. Since the evidence of P.W.7 is clear, cogent and worthy of credence and the said evidence established commission of an offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C., the appeal filed challenging the same is devoid of merit. Since the evidence of P.W.7 is clear, cogent and worthy of credence and the said evidence established commission of an offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C., the appeal filed challenging the same is devoid of merit. So far sentence imposed is concerned, it is submitted that the accused having dealt slap blows to the deceased and the deceased having died, the sentence imposed appears to be commensurate to the facts and circumstances. Therefore, the same needs no interference. 9. P.W.7 in this case was a cook of the hotel of the accused is not in dispute. The evidence of P.W.7 reveals that the deceased was working there as a hotel boy and not attending his work properly. On the relevant day in question as P.W.7 could not finish his cooking in time, being asked the reason of delay by the accused, he explained that non-assistance of the deceased boy was the reason. The accused as such became annoyed with the deceased and dealt slap blows to the deceased, for which the deceased fell down. Then he sat on a bench and wept. At about 1.00 P.M P.W.7 left the hotel and when he came back at 4.00 P.M. he found the deceased to have died inside the hotel. His dead body was thereafter kept concealed by the accused, then he left the hotel. Incisive examination has been done to impeach the credibility of the aforesaid version of this witness, but nothing could be elicited from him. A suggestion was also given that he was never working as a Mistry and he was speaking falsehood due to animosity which this witness denied. Such suggestion has also no legs to stand as no material supports the same. The defence version i.e. the version of D.W.1 contrary to the same discloses that P.W.7 was working in the hotel of the accused, but as there was quarrel between P.W.7 and the accused with regard to irregularity in payment of wage, P.W.7 had extended threat of dire consequences and thereafter when the deceased died, he utilized such opportunity to speak against the accused. The aforesaid defence version appears to be an after thought, inasmuch as the aforesaid was never brought to the notice of P.W.7 during his cross-examination but stand was taken by the accused that P.W.7 was never working as a ‘Mistry’ in his hotel. The aforesaid defence version appears to be an after thought, inasmuch as the aforesaid was never brought to the notice of P.W.7 during his cross-examination but stand was taken by the accused that P.W.7 was never working as a ‘Mistry’ in his hotel. Nothing having been brought to the record that this witness was inimical to the accused or had any axe to grind, his version of causing hurt to the deceased by dealing slap to the deceased for which the deceased died as such can be said as worthy of credence. 10. Therefore, since the evidence of P.W.7 clearly indicates that as the accused dealt slap blows, the deceased died, the judgment of conviction under Section 323 of the I.P.C. against the accused recorded placing reliance on the same by the trial court, cannot be found fault with. 11. So far as sentence imposed is concerned, since the deceased died after the aforesaid assault, contention advanced to take a lenient view on the sentence imposed has no merit and needs no consideration. 12. Hence, this criminal appeal filed challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is devoid merit and as such stands dismissed.