JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J.: This criminal appeal is directed against the conviction, passed by 7th,learned A.D.J. (F.T.C.) Giridih dated 10.11.2009 and sentence, pronounced on 12.11.2009 in S.T. No. 91/02, convicting the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine worth of Rs.1000/-for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine worth of Rs.1000/-for the offence under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine worth of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and period already undergone in jail by this appellant during trial of this case was to adjusted towards the sentences passed against him. In default of payment of fine appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that informant of this case, Bhagirath Das, PW-3, lodged his written petition with O.C. Hirodih police station on 02.02.2000 at 7.00 p.m. to the effect that on the same day at 4.00 p.m. Binod Jee, who was authorized by the block, came to the well to settle the dispute regarding the well and Binod Jee explained to all that each and every one have equal right to take water from the said well and he went away. After that accused persons Raju, Jag Jeewan, Arjun and Tun Tun came there armed with brick , lathi and iron rod and abused the informant side and assaulted and abused them and took away their bucket, rope and pulley and threatened them to cause their death. 3. On the basis of this written petition of informant, O.C. Hirodih P.S. prepared the formal FIR No. 07/2000 of Hirodih P.S. After investigation charge sheet for the offence under Sections 341/323/337/379/506/411/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the accused. 4. Charges for offence under Sections 341/323/337/379/304/34 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In this case, altogether 11 witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution. Trial was held and after conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. 5. In this case, altogether 11 witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution. Trial was held and after conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. PW-3 Bhagirath Das is the informant of this case. He deposed that on 02.02.2000 at 2.00 p.m. he was at his home. At that time, supervisor came from block to enquire about the supply of the water as they had informed that accused persons were preventing them from taking the water from the well. After the supervisor went away accused Raju, Jag Jeewan, Arjun and Tun Tun went on the roof of their house and caused injury to Radhia by pelting brick bat. He further said that Radhia sustained injury on her temple by stone pelted by accused Raju Das. He further said that he and others also received injuries and due to said injury Radhia became unconscious and she was taken to police station and from there she was taken to District Hospital. Accused Raju, Jag Jeewan, Tun Tun and Arjun Das took away his bucket, pulley, khunta, rope, slippers (chappal) and towel (gamacha). Radhia died during treatment. 7. PW-1, Kranti Devi deposed that she was present at the place of occurrence. Her sister-in-law Niria Devi was also with her and they were there to take water from the well. Accused Raju, Jag Jeewan, Arjun and Tun Tun prevented them from taking the water. When accused persons were abusing them, her father-in-law and mother-in-law came there and accused persons also abused them. Accused persons climbed on their roof and threw brick bats on them and her mother-in-law Radhia sustained injury near her ear by brick bats thrown by Raju Das. After that they went to police station and police send them to Jamuwa Hospital where they were given first aid and from there they were sent to District Hospital Giridih. During treatment her mother-in-law Radhia Devi died. 8. PW-2 Jagadish Das deposed that occurrence occurred on 02.02.2000 at 4.00 p.m. He was at the neighbouring well for watering his field of wheat. His wife, mother, father and Bhagirath Das were also there. Meanwhile Raju, Jag Jeewan, Arjun and Tun Tun Das came there and they prevented them from watering their field. When he refused to obey them then accused persons pelted brick bats. They climbed on the roof and from there they pelted brick bats. His wife, mother, father and Bhagirath Das were also there. Meanwhile Raju, Jag Jeewan, Arjun and Tun Tun Das came there and they prevented them from watering their field. When he refused to obey them then accused persons pelted brick bats. They climbed on the roof and from there they pelted brick bats. His mother received injuries due to said brick bats. His mother received injury at her left ear and she fell down and blood oozed from her mouth, ear and nose and she developed vomiting. They brought her to their home under unconscious state and from there they took her to the police station and on the advice of police he brought his mother to Jamuwa Hospital where his mother was treated and during treatment she died. He further said that his mother received the injury by the brick bat pelted by accused Raju Das and she died due to the said injury. He further said that police recorded his statement and accused persons took away his bucket, rope, two shawls (chaddar) and pulley. 9. PW-7, Niriya Devi deposed that incident took place five years ago at about 4.00 p.m. she was at the Government well of her village and was watering her field of wheat. There was pulley, rope and wood, meanwhile, accused Raju Das, Jag Jeewan, Arjun and Tun Tun came there and abused them and beat them. On hue and cry, villagers assembled there and they attempted to mediate. Raju climbed on to the roof of his home and pelted brick bats causing injuries to Radhia and Bhagirath. Radhia sustained injury on her left temple and she fell down and became unconscious. She was taken to police station Hirodih and from there she was conveyed to Jamuwa Hospital and from there to District Hospital, Giridih. She further said that accused persons took away pulley, rope, wood, one pair of slipper (chappal) and one old shawl and all these articles were recovered by the police from the house of Raju Das. 10. PW-8 Fagu Das deposed that incident took place five years ago at about 4.00 p.m. At that time, he was watering his field by taking water from the well of the village. Pulley, bucket, rope etc. were kept by him on the well. At that time, accused persons Raju, Tun Tun and Jag Jeewan came there and started throwing brick bats. Pulley, bucket, rope etc. were kept by him on the well. At that time, accused persons Raju, Tun Tun and Jag Jeewan came there and started throwing brick bats. Raju Das climed on the roof and pelted stone which caused injury to Radhia on her ear. Jag Jeewan, Tun Tun, Arjun and Raju Das, all were pelting brick bats from their roof. After receiving the injuries Radhia fell down and blood oozed from her left ear. Radhia was taken to police station and from there she was taken to Jamuwa Hospital and from there she was taken to District Hospital, Giridih where she died within eleven days, during the treatment. All the utensils of watering which were kept on the well were taken away by the accused persons. Daroga came and all the stolen articles were recovered from the house of the accused persons and seizure list was prepared for this. 11. PW-4 Vinod Kumar Gupta deposed that on 02.02.2002 he was posted as Panchayat Supervisor of Khariodih Panchayat of sub-division Jamuwa. On that day B.D.O. Jamuwa received the written petition of Fagu Rabidas of village Ratan Pura of Khariodih Panchayat. On the order of B.D.O., he went to village Ratan Pura to settle the dispute of taking water from the well. He went to the disputed well situated in Harizan Tola of village Ratan Pura. Persons of neighbouring locality came at the said well and they complained to him that Raju, Arjun, Tun Tun and Jag Jeewan are preventing the others from taking the water from the said well and he called them and explained to them. 12. PW-5 Sito Rai deposed that Darogaji searched the house of Raju Das in his presence and rope, bucket, chappal, shawl and pulley of well was recovered from his house. Darogaji handed over to him the entire articles on Supurdnama and Darogaji prepared paper for it on which he put his L.T.I and Bholu Rabidas put his signature on it. 13. PW-6 Golu Rabidas is the neighbour of deceased and informant. He deposed that on 2.2.2000 at about 3.00 P.M. Bhagirath was watering his field of wheat by taking water from the Government well. At that time, Raju, Jag Jeewan, Tun Tun and Arjun came there and quarreled with Bhagirath and objected his taking the water and pelted brick bats due to which Teepan, Bhagirath, and Radhia sustained injuries. He deposed that on 2.2.2000 at about 3.00 P.M. Bhagirath was watering his field of wheat by taking water from the Government well. At that time, Raju, Jag Jeewan, Tun Tun and Arjun came there and quarreled with Bhagirath and objected his taking the water and pelted brick bats due to which Teepan, Bhagirath, and Radhia sustained injuries. Radhia sustained injury on her temple and she became unconscious. Then Bhagirath, Radhia and Teepan went to police station and from there they were sent to Jamuwa Hospital and from Jamuwa Hospital, Radhia was sent to District Hospital, Giridih and during treatment Radhia died. Accused Raju Rabidas took away wood, pulley, slippers (chappal) and two shawls. After that police came there and called him and Sito Ram and they went to courtyard of Raju Rabidas from where all the articles were recovered and paper regarding the same was prepared to which he put his L.T.I. 14. PW-9, Dr. B.P. Singh has deposed that on 13.02.2000, he was posted as C.A.S. District Hospital, Giridih. On that day, at about 3.00 P.M. he conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Radhia Devi and found the followings: (1) Conjunctiva-NAD (2) Teeth-Intact (3) Tongue-Inside. External ante mortem injuries: (1) Eichymosis over left side scalp temporal region 1”x1”. On dissection: (1) Sub cutaneous tissue in neck-NAD (2) Lyrings and trachea-NAD (3) Hyoid Bone-Intact (4) Under surface of scalp left side temporal region eicchymosis associated with fracture of temporal bone (5) cranial cavity contains extra dunal clotted blood (6) Brain-contused (7) Lungs-congested (8) Heart-contains blood at both side (9) Lever, spleen, kidney-NAD (10) Stomach-contains water about 250 ml. and mucus membrain-Normal. No peculiar smell (11)Urinary Bladder-Empty (12) Uterus-Normal Size (13) Vagina-NAD (14) Injuries mentioned above were ante mortem in nature and were caused by hard and blunt substance, cause of death is the result of head injury. Time elapsed since death to P.M. Examination about 6.00 hours. This witness has accepted the P.M. report of Radhia Devi in his pen and signature which was marked as Ext-1. 15. PW-10 Dr. Ramayan Ram deposed that on 02.02.2000 he was posted as M.O. at P.H.C. Jamuwa. Time elapsed since death to P.M. Examination about 6.00 hours. This witness has accepted the P.M. report of Radhia Devi in his pen and signature which was marked as Ext-1. 15. PW-10 Dr. Ramayan Ram deposed that on 02.02.2000 he was posted as M.O. at P.H.C. Jamuwa. On that day at 8.40 P.M. he examined Radhia Devi aged about 50 years and found the following injury on her body: (1) Bleeding from the left ear and she was referred to District Hospital, Giridih for proper management, report and opinion (2) Swelling on right side back on head 2”x2” normal colour. This injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Time elapsed since injury to examination was six hours. This witness has accepted the injury report in his pen and signature and marked as Ext-2. This witness further deposed that on the same day at 9.00 P.M. he examined Badri Das and found the followings: (1) Laceration on right eye brow outer side 1”x ½”x in complete skin (2) Laceration on right eye brow on right inner portion root ½”x ½” x skin deep (3) Swelling on right upper back side (scapular level)1 ½”x 1” red in colour. Injuries were simple in nature caused by hard, blunt and rough substance. Time elapsed since injury to medical examination within six hours. This witness has accepted the injury report of Badri Das in his pen and signature and which was marked as Ext.2/1. 16. PW-11 Shri Kant Singh deposed that on 2.2.2000 he was posted at Hirodih police station. On that day, he received the written petition of Bhagirath Das and he made his endorsement on the said petition in his pen and signature which was marked as Ext.3. He proved the formal FIR which was marked as Ext.-4. He further deposed that he took the charge of investigation of this case and prepared the injury slips of the injured persons which was marked as Ext.2/2 and Ext-2/3. He further said that he visited the place of occurrence, which is the old pucca well constructed by Government of 5 feet width and 30 feet of depth consisting of water of about 15 feet. This well is situated at the distance of about 40 feet north east of the house of accused Raju Das. He further said that brick bats were found scattered near the place of occurrence. This well is situated at the distance of about 40 feet north east of the house of accused Raju Das. He further said that brick bats were found scattered near the place of occurrence. He further said that he searched the house of accused persons and recovered the articles taken by the accused persons. A seizure list of said articles was prepared by him which is marked as Ext.5. He further said that he re-examined the informant and recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted charge sheet for offence u/s 341/323/337/506/379/411/304/34 of the I.P.C. 17. In addition to above noted oral evidences certain documentary evidence has been placed by the prosecution on the record which are (1) Ext-1 is the P.M. Report of deceased Radhia Devi dated 13.02.2000 (2) Ext.-2 is the injury report of Radhia Devi dated 02.02.2000 (3) Ext.-2/1 is the injury report of Badri Das (4) Ext.-3 is the endorsement of S.I. Shri Kant Singh on the written petition of informant (5) Ext.-4 is the formal FIR of this case (6) Ext.2/2 is the injury slip of Radhia Devi (7) Ext.2/3 is the injury slip of Badri Das while (8) Ext.-5 is the seizure list of the stolen articles recovered from the house of accused persons. Argument of appellant’s counsel: 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has, at the outset, taken us briefly through the depositions and highlighted certain aspects. From the deposition of PW-2, Jagadish Das, who is the husband of PW-1, has pointed out that the deceased had become unconscious and was then taken to hospital. However, Doctor examined her when she was taken to the hospital i.e. Dr. R. Ram did not find her unconscious on being taken to the hospital. Referring to the evidence of PW-3, who is Bhagirath Das, the informant, counsel for the appellant says that after the supervisor came to examine the well and went away then the accused climbed on roof and threw stones and bricks. So it was not only Raju Das, the appellant, who had thrown the bricks and stones alone. Referring to PW-4, who is the supervisor, a Government official, counsel for the appellant submitted that this supervisor has not been able to prove that it is a Government well. The prosecution must prove that it is a Government well to give the right of defence to the informant side. Referring to PW-4, who is the supervisor, a Government official, counsel for the appellant submitted that this supervisor has not been able to prove that it is a Government well. The prosecution must prove that it is a Government well to give the right of defence to the informant side. Referring to PW-5, who is Sito Rai in para-9 of his evidence, counsel says that this witness said he is illiterate and does not know what was written on the seizure. Referring to PW-7, who is one Niriya Devi, who has claimed to be at the well, is in contradiction to the evidence of PW-1, who had said no one from the village came. Referring to the evidence of PW-8 Fagu Das, who is the husband of the deceased, counsel for the appellant says that in para-11 & 12 of his evidence, there is reference to prior dispute and that both the parties claimed the land of the well; hence, a dispute is admitted. In para-13 and 14 of this witness’s deposition, it has come that altercation took place at the well itself and that they were the only persons there and village people came later on. Counsel for the appellant then says whatever occurred, happened at the well and it has further come from the evidence of this witness when Radhia Devi was injured she fell down, therefore, counsel says injury was a result from the fall and not from any stone or brick thrown by him. 19. After this brief review of the depositions, learned counsel for the appellant has then enumerated his main points of his arguments and said that it is clear that there was prior dispute regarding land and due to address that issue, only scuffle took place. Therefore, the allegations are not made out or there is exaggeration in the allegations. 20. Learned counsel says that the nature of injury also cannot be totally proved because it is said by the Doctor( PW-9) in para-20 of his evidence that patient was hospitalized or not he is unable to say. So in absence of any such evidence of hospitalization, it cannot be said that the injury was grievous. 20. Learned counsel says that the nature of injury also cannot be totally proved because it is said by the Doctor( PW-9) in para-20 of his evidence that patient was hospitalized or not he is unable to say. So in absence of any such evidence of hospitalization, it cannot be said that the injury was grievous. Counsel has also said, not admitting, but for the sake of argument that it has come from the evidence of IO that the distance from the well to the house where the bricks or stones were thrown from was at a distance of 40 feet and without knowing the mass and velocity of the stones or bricks thrown it cannot be determined as to what kind of injury would be possible on the injured persons, who subsequently died. Therefore, eichymosis was the result of falling on the ground near the well. Again pointing out to the evidence of Doctor,PW-9, para-19, counsel says that there is only one external injury and this was caused by fall on hard and blunt substance, and not by any brick thrown by Raju Das. Counsel has then pointed out to the evidence of PW-5, who is the seizure list witness, and said that he was at home when the police came and then he was called from home and his thumb impression was taken. This witness has said he is illiterate and he does not know what was written on the seizure list. Counsel has said that this is the clear cut case of illegality on the part of the IO and the entire case collapses duly to faulty and biased investigation. He has also pointed out to evidence of PW-6 who is another seizure list witness and said that the paper on which he had signed was done so at the well, this is evident from para-14 of the evidence of PW-6. Appellant’s counsel has hence said that this seizure witness is also unreliable and based on illegal procedure. Counsel has further said regarding seizure that no blood stained earth or blood stained clothes were seized to indicate the injury. Further, at the place where seizure was made other inmates of the family also lived. So it cannot be pinpointed that the seizure was made from Raju Das. 21. Counsel has further said regarding seizure that no blood stained earth or blood stained clothes were seized to indicate the injury. Further, at the place where seizure was made other inmates of the family also lived. So it cannot be pinpointed that the seizure was made from Raju Das. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that timing of occurrence as given in the evidence of PW-3 is 2.00 p.m., and by PW-6 to be 3.00 p.m. and by PW-1, PW-2 to be 4.00 p.m., so there is much variation in timing. Finally, he has also said that the allegation was also made under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, recovery is doubtful and therefore, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code also. Further he has said that conviction is also for Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and both relate to assault and he should only be if at all held for only one offence i.e. Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has already undergone sufficient period in custody. Learned counsel also submitted that initially Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was also included but later on excluded at conviction but there is no reasoning for this. Finally, he said that when two views as to the guilt of the accused is possible either of conviction or acquittal then benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant and he has also said that there are two views also possible, which is either assault by the brick thrown or injury by falling on the ground. Here, too benefit of doubt should be extended to him. In this regard, he has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Dilip and Another versus State of M.P.”, reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 450. Argument of State counsel: 22. Learned counsel for the State has argued that appellant is trying to deviate the Hon’ble Court by minor arguments of variation in time of occurrence and velocity and mass of bricks or stones. The main issue is that after a person was injured and subsequently died then how or what are the reasons for her death. Learned counsel for the State has argued that appellant is trying to deviate the Hon’ble Court by minor arguments of variation in time of occurrence and velocity and mass of bricks or stones. The main issue is that after a person was injured and subsequently died then how or what are the reasons for her death. This would mean highlighting the nature of assault, the manner of assault and as to the witnesses who had seen the assault take place. Counsel for the State then submits that PW-3, who is Bhagirath Das has in his written report fully described how the altercation between the informant’s party including some of the witness and the appellant’s took place. Further, that the accused had gone on to the top of the roof of the house thrown bricks resulting in injury to Radhia Devi, who died later on during her treatment. He has further said that the Radhia Devi sustained injury on her temple by stone pelted by Raju Das. This has been fully corroborated by PW-1, PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 and therefore, the allegation is believable and the conviction is fully sustainable. Further the ocular evidence has been supported by both the Doctors i.e. PW-9 and PW-10 and therefore, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned court-below requires no interference. Reasons 23. Having heard both counsels and having gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances, it is seen that the appellant is convicted of three offences, that is Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code which is dishonestly receiving stolen property, Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code causing hurt by an act endangering life and personal safety of others and Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code causing death by negligence. From the evidence of the informant PW-3 Bhagirath Das, it is indicated that they had written to Government official or supervisor of the block about the supply of water from the well from which the accused persons were preventing them from taking the water. Apparently this communication to the supervisor or official appears to be true from the evidence of PW-4 who is one Vinod Kumar Gupta who has deposed before the court that he was posted as panchayat supervisor of Khariodih Panchayat of sub-division Jamuwa. Apparently this communication to the supervisor or official appears to be true from the evidence of PW-4 who is one Vinod Kumar Gupta who has deposed before the court that he was posted as panchayat supervisor of Khariodih Panchayat of sub-division Jamuwa. PW-4 said that the BDO Jamuwa had received written petition from one Fagu Rabidas regarding the same and on the order of the BDO he had gone to the village of Ratanpura, Khariodih Panchayat to settle the dispute. This witness further report that he had gone to the disputed well side where persons of neighbouring locality complained about Raju, Arjun, Tun Tun and Jag Jeewan from preventing others from taking water. PW-4 had even called the above named accused persons, and explained to them, subsequent to which, the incident took place. So it seems that the informant side had legitimate and serious reasons for informing the Government official. Depriving anybody from taking water from a public well is indeed a thoughtless and cruel act, particularly, in country like ours where the majority of the people do not have access to good, immediate or attached sources of supply. Depriving water to individuals from public source would also raise human rights issues. To resort to criminal force and assault to prevent the use of water from public source would definitely amount to serious offence. From the written report of PW-3 Bhagirath Das, it is seen that on 2.2.2000 at 4.00 p.m after the supervisor had come to the well to settle the dispute regarding well water and explained to each and everyone that all have equal right to take water from the said well and gone away then the appellant came there armed with lathi and iron rod and abused the informant and his companion and threatened to kill them and took away their bucket rope and pulley. From the evidence of PW-1, Kranti Devi and PW-7 Niriya Devi, it is seen that they were at the well and utilizing the water. From their evidence, it is also indicated that Radia Devi was also there and she received injuries from brick thrown at her by appellant Raju Das from the roof. 24. That the injured were taken to the police station at Hirodih and subsequently to the hospital at Jamua and then the District Hospital at Giridih. PW-1 deposed that her mother-in-law died during treatment. 24. That the injured were taken to the police station at Hirodih and subsequently to the hospital at Jamua and then the District Hospital at Giridih. PW-1 deposed that her mother-in-law died during treatment. PW-7 deposed that the appellant had taken away pulley, rope, slippers, wood and one old shawl and these articles were recovered from the house of Raju Das. From the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution case is supported in both the aspects of assault on persons at the well including Radia Devi and also of taking away articles owned by the informant side. 25. The evidence of PW-2 Jagadish Das, PW-8 Fagu Das , PW-6 Golu Rabidas also corroborated the prosecution story and also the evidence of PW-1 Kranti Devi and PW-7 Niriya Devi. 26. From the evidence of PW-7 , PW-8 it is indicated that the articles that was looted by the appellant was recovered by the police. PW-5 Sito Rai deposed that he had put his left thumb impression on the seizure list prepared by the Police. PW-6 has also deposed that articles such as pulley, slipper, wood, and shawl were recovered by the police from the house of Raju Ravidas and police recovered it and he put his left thumb impression on seizer list. So it seems offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code seems to be supported by evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 seizure list witness. 27. The evidence of the IO has taken into account the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the informant's family members which corroborate prosecution case. He also visited and proved place of occurrence. He had also corroborated on the seizure made and seizure witnesses, and also he had prepared injury slips of injured persons. 28. From the evidence of PW-10, who is Dr. Ramayan Ram, it is clear that Radhia Devi had received injury near left ear. From the evidence of PW-9 Dr. B.P.Singh, it is apparent that injuries were on the left side scalp temporal region and the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance which was cause of death. Prosecution witnesses have said that the main injury on the head was inflicted by the appellant who had thrown brick due to which Radhia Devi received the fatal head injury. Though she remained in hospital for some time, she finally died, during course of treatment. Prosecution witnesses have said that the main injury on the head was inflicted by the appellant who had thrown brick due to which Radhia Devi received the fatal head injury. Though she remained in hospital for some time, she finally died, during course of treatment. Arguments by the appellant regarding mass and velocity of the brick thrown and distance from the well to the house do not dispel the assault, the injury and hence the subsequent death of Radhia Devi is proved by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, in the fact and circumstances all the offences under the aforesaid sections in which conviction was made by the learned trial court are, therefore, upheld. 29. Therefore, after having gone through the arguments of the counsels, the records available and on the basis of the aforesaid reasonings, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Raju Ravidas @ Raju Das for the offence under Sections 411, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. The judgment of conviction, passed by the learned A.D.J. (F.T.C.) 7th, Giridih, dated 10.11.2009 is therefore upheld and the sentences passed on 12.11.2009 are also upheld. Learned court-below is directed to take steps to procure his arrest to serve out the sentence as awarded. His bail bond is cancelled. 30. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.