JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Under assailment in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 15.09.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 94(NL)/2006. 2. The case projected by the prosecution in brief is that on the afternoon of 13.02.2006 after a heated exchange due to some dispute the accused appellant Upen Mili suddenly hit the head of the son of the informant with a piece of brick as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The written FIR was lodged at about 8.30 am on the next morning with the O/C Lakhimpur Police Station by the father of the deceased on the basis of which North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.102/2006 u/s 302 of the IPC was registered and on completion of the investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused appellant under the said section. 3. The learned Sessions Judge before whom the case came up for trial framed charge u/s 304 II of the IPC to which the accused appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses including the IO and the MO to prove the charge against the accused appellant. The accused pleaded that at the relevant time he was not at Jariguri where the alleged occurrence took place. 4. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant and also heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 5. The only witness to the occurrence is PW 4 Smti. Parkit Mili, who claims to have seen the accused appellant causing the injuries to the deceased with a piece of brick. According to her while she was inside the house she saw a quarrel taking place between the accused appellant and the deceased near her shop which was situated in the courtyard. She tried to intervene but she was also assaulted. Then she saw the accused appellant throwing a piece of brick which hit the head of the deceased, which resulted his instantaneous death. She raised hue and cry to attract the attention of other person and after some time people of the locality came and took the dead body to his house. Her evidence is corroborated by PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 as post occurrence witnesses, who claimed to have seen the dead body of the deceased being brought to his house. Her evidence is corroborated by PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 as post occurrence witnesses, who claimed to have seen the dead body of the deceased being brought to his house. 6. PW 2 Smti. Dhansiri Mili, and PW 3 Sri Lakhya Mili, parents of the deceased saw the dead body of their son brought to the house by Krishna Narah and Paw Mili. They came to know from Smti. Parkit Mili, that the accused appellant had caused the death of the deceased by hitting him with the piece of brick. Since it was night time no FIR was lodged and on the next morning Ext. 2 FIR was lodged. The delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained and there is no room to suspect embellishment or after thought. PW 5 and PW 6 also saw the dead body of the deceased lying near the shop of Smti. Parkit Mili. They have deposed that they brought the dead body to the house of the deceased and according to them they came to know that the accused appellant had caused the injuries to the deceased. Apart from PW 4 none of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution saw the accused appellant assaulting the deceased with a brick, however, PW 4 is a highly reliable witness having no axe to grind against the accused and she claims to have seen him throwing the brick at the deceased which caused grievous injuries to him resulting his death. PW 5 and PW 6 carried the dead body to the house of the deceased and the parents of the deceased saw the dead body of their son being brought to their house. 7. The learned trial court on consideration of the evidence of PW 4 which is also corroborated to some extent by PW 2, PW 3, PW 5 and PW 6 came to the finding that it was the accused appellant who caused the death of the deceased by throwing a piece of brick on his head. 8. Inquest on the dead body was done by the Executive Magistrate and from the inquest report Ext 3 it is found that grievous injury was caused on the left side of the head of the deceased and another injury was also found on the left part of the stomach just below the ribs. 8. Inquest on the dead body was done by the Executive Magistrate and from the inquest report Ext 3 it is found that grievous injury was caused on the left side of the head of the deceased and another injury was also found on the left part of the stomach just below the ribs. Post mortem on the dead body was conducted by PW 1 Dr. Abdus Sattar Talukdar and according to him there was haematoma on the left parieto temporal region with laceration of the size 4” x ½”. Abrasion was also found on the upper abdomen below the costal region. He found one dissection, fracture of the left partital bone with massive subdurael haematoma. According to him the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries. The evidence of the doctor is thus corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses so far as the injuries on the dead body is concerned and his positive evidence is that death was due to the head injury. 9. The defecne plea is that on the date of the occurrence the accused appellant was not in Jariguri, but he failed to substantiate the plea and consequently the plea is not found to be sustainable. Although one witness has been examined as DW 1 to prove the plea but he could not establish that on the date of the occurrence the accused appellant was in his house. 10. On an overall assessment of the evidence on record and from my discussions above I have found that there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused appellant which infuriated the accused and he had thrown the brick on the head of the deceased which resulted in his death. Although from the evidence on record the intention to cause death cannot be imputed to the accused appellant, it would be reasonable to infer that he had knowledge that any injury on the vital part of the body would cause death thus attracting section 304 Part II of the IPC. Consequently, I find no reason to set aside the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur. 11. The appeal accordingly fails. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused appellant has already completed his period of detention. 12. Consequently, I find no reason to set aside the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur. 11. The appeal accordingly fails. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused appellant has already completed his period of detention. 12. In view of above submission, and if the accused appellant has already completed his jail term, he may be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 13. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.