Joymalya Bagchi, J.

The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sadar, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 01(09) 2008 (Sessions Case No. 191/2008) convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-in default to suffer a rigorous imprisonment for two months more with further direction that 50% of the fine amount, if realized, would go in favour of the defacto complainant/ P.W. 1 as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that the appellant, who is a married person, proposed for marriage with Subhadra Barman, P.W. 2, sister of the victim, Kanai Barman. Over this issue on 20.10.2004 at about 5.00p.m. there was an altercation between the appellant and the victim on the P.W.D. Road in front of the house of the victim.

In the course of such altercation the appellant assaulted the victim with fists and blows and the victim fell down on the spot. The appellant escaped. P.W.1, the wife of the victim and other family members rushed to the spot and found that the victim had died. P.W. 1 lodged written complaint with the police station which was registered as Sitalkuchi Police Station Case No. 57/2004 dated 20.10.2004 under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the course of investigation inquest was held over the dead body of the victim and postmortem examination was conducted. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sadar, Cooch Behar for trial and disposal.

Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and a number of documents were exhibited. The postmortem report was exhibited upon admission under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial the learned Trial Judge by judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more with further direction that 50% of the fine amount, if realized, would go in favour of the defacto complainant/P.W. 1 as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. Dasgupta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the independent witnesses viz. P.Ws. 6 and 7 have not supported the prosecution case. Other witnesses are relatives of the victim. There was enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant. Accordingly, the latter was falsely implicated. He further submits that prosecution evidence, even if believed to be true, speaks of assault by fists and blows and there is no evidence on record that the appellant was aware that the victim was suffering from poor health. He further submits that the postmortem doctor and other vital witnesses were not examined. Prosecution case including the cause of death has not been proved. He prays for acquittal.

Mr. Keshri, learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws. 1 to 4 have clearly established that the appellant assaulted the victim and as a consequence he died. He further submits that postmortem report was admitted under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly could be read as