Short Note : 1. Briefly stated the prosecution case at the trial was that Ditia (P.W. 1), llamsingh (P W. 5), Nankia, the deceased Budhu and the appellant had collected at the residence of Amarsingh (P. W. 2) on 14-1-75 at about 4 or 5 p.m. in the evening. After consuming liquor and eating tobacco an alteration took place between the appellant and Ditia (P.W. 1) as to who should repay the loan borrowed from the Government. Ditia wanted that the appellant himself should payoff the loan as he was actually cultivating the land but the appellant flatly denied, whereupon the appellant shot an arrow at Budhu the deceased, who was the brother of Ditia (P W. 1) and thereafter the appellant ran away, due to the arrow shot, injury on the chest, Budhu died on the spot. 2. Held: There appears no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Ditia (P.W.1), Amarsingh (P.W.2) and llamsingh (P.W.5) from whose evidence it has been clearly established that it was appellant, who shot an arrow, which pierced into the chest of Budhu. Their consistent evidence further finds corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr Jain (P.W.3), who also found an injury on the left side of the chest on the body of Budhu. Though it is not clear from the prosecution evidence as to why Budhu was shot with an arrow when in fact the grievance of the appellant if at all any was against Ditia and not his brother. But it appears that Budhu who was sitting with his brother Ditia any how received the arrow injury which proved fatal. Thus, the intension of the appellant to kill is quite apparent more so when arrow shot pierced into a vital put of the body, namely, the chest. All this evidence, in our opinion, has sufficiently established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and we see no reason to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses Referred to above. Appeal dismissed.