SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the Appellant challenges his conviction for offence punishable under Section 304 Part (II) IPC and the order of sentence directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Briefly, the prosecution case is that, on 31st December, 1996 at about 10.30 p.m. when Hansraj, son of the deceased and complainant was coming by his scooter,the Appellant stopped him and a quarrel took place between them. On hearing thenoise of quarrel, besides one or two other persons, his parents also reached therewho separated PW 9 Hansraj from the clutches of the Appellant and took him towardsone side. On this, the Appellant gave a fist blow on the chest of his father dueto which he fell down and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital wherehe was declared brought dead. On the information being sent to the police,statement of Smt. Dalip Kaur PW 8 the wife of deceased was recorded on the basis ofwhich an FIR was registered. After completion of investigation on a charge-sheetbeing filed, the Appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant assailing the judgment contends that theonly role assigned to the Appellant is giving one fist blow on the chest of thedeceased. In the MLC Ex. PW5/A the deceased was stated to be brought dead on 31stDecember, 1996 at 11.23 p.m. and there was no external sign of any injury. As perthe postmortem report, Ex. PW6/A the cause of death was due to "Acute MyocardialIschaemia(heart attack) subsequent to Aortic Valve Stenosis & Fresh Blood Clotspresent in the Right Coronary Artery". The mode of death was due to naturaldisease process. It is stated that since the deceased died of natural death, nocase for conviction for an offence under Section 304 Part (II) IPC is made out.