S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) IN Sessions Trial No. 122/80, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, vide his judgment dated 21. 11. 1980 convicted the appellant Podiyami Badadi for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant has preferred this appeal through jail, challenging the said conviction and sentence. Shri S. S. Tiwari, advocate, had been appointed as a counsel for the appellant. ( 2 ) THE deceased Podiyami Kosa was the real younger brother of appellant Podiyami Badodi. One of the younger sons of deceased Podiyami Kosa had run away being of imbalanced mind. That son could not be located. In the evening of 28. 2. 1980 at about 6. 30 P. M. in the village Bodenar deceased Podiyami Kosa in presence of Sukko sb the appellant stated that the appellant has practised witch-craft on his son so as to make him insane. At this Sukko, appellant's son brought a TANGIYA and wanted to assault thereform but Dasru son of the deceased snatched the Tangiya from Sukko. Thereafter Sukko went away to his house. Then the appellant came there with a bow and arrow and shot an arrow on the deceased, which pierced his chest. The appellant then ran away. At that time Dasru (P. W. 2) and podiyami Payki (P. W. 1) were present. ( 3 ) THE First Information Report (Ex. P. 1) was lodged by Dasru (P. W. 1) on 29. 2-1980 at about 8. 30 P. M. in Police Station Lohandi Guda. Sub-Inspector M. R. Sonekar (P. W. 10) recorded this report Ex. P. 1. The Sub-Inspector reached the spot and after holding an inquest over the dead body of Podiyami Kosa forwarded the same for post-mortem examination. He also seized the blood stained and unstained earth. ( 4 ) DR. Padmakar Mishra (P. W. 11) on 2-3-1980 performed the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Podiyami Kosa. He found an oval-shaped wound on the left side of the chest just above the left nipple. According to him the front portion of arrow had pierced the heart which was damaged severely into multiple pieces. Dr. Mishra in his post-mortem report Ex. P. 4. A and the evidence stated the details about the said injury. He found an oval-shaped wound on the left side of the chest just above the left nipple. According to him the front portion of arrow had pierced the heart which was damaged severely into multiple pieces. Dr. Mishra in his post-mortem report Ex. P. 4. A and the evidence stated the details about the said injury. According to him the arrow must have been shot with great force and the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of death was shock as a result of excessive bleeding. ( 5 ) THE appellant in his examination denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence. ( 6 ) THE conviction of the appellant rests on the direct testimony of Podiyami Payki (P. W. 1) who is one of the wives of the deceased and Podiyami Dasru (P. W. 2) who is the son of the deceased. Their evidence, so far as the appellant being the assailant of the deceased is concerned is quite consistent. The evidence of Dasru (P. W. 2) stands corroborated by the first information report (Ex. P. 1) which in view of the distance of the police station, cannot even be said to be a delayed one. The evidence of Dasru (P. W. 2) further finds support from the evidence of Dasru (P. W. 3) who is the Sarpanch of the village. This Dasru (P. W. 3) had been informed by Dasru (P. W. 2) that it was the appellant who had shot the arrow on his father. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant firstly contended that there art certain contradictions omissions in the evidence of Podiyami Payki (P. W. 1) and Podiyami Dasru (P. W. 2 ). We have been taken through those contradictions and omissions and we are satisfied that they are on minor facts and about details, having no consequence so far as the veracity of those witnesses is concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant then made another attempt to show that the offence would not in the circumstances be that of murder. This submission also, in our opinion, deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant then made another attempt to show that the offence would not in the circumstances be that of murder. This submission also, in our opinion, deserves to be rejected. The submission of the learned counsel was based on that part of the evidence of the witnesses wherein they had stated that an attempt had been made to take the arrow out from the body of the deceased. Dr. Mishra (P. W. 11) has clearly negatived the possibility of the injured Podiyami Kosa dying in an attempt to take the arrow out. What he states is that the deceased would have in either case died as a result of the injury. The report (Ex. P. 4) is also the evidence of Dr. Mishra (P. W. 11) clearly indicates that the heart had been severely damaged and there were multiple pieces as a result of the injury. That being so, to say that the injured died in an attempt to take an arrow out bears no merit. Clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code would, in the circumstances be clearly attracted making the appellant liable for an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, amply proved that it was the appellant who had shot the arrow at the deceased causing injury, which resulted in his death. In our opinion, therefore, the conviction and the sentence do not call for any interference. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant are up-held. Appeal dismissed. .