Judgment S.C.Mookherji, J. 1. By a judgment dated 23rd April, 1988, in Sessions Trial No.47 of 1987 the learned Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh has convicted the appellant u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Short facts, unfortunate Dulari Manjhiain, who is no more in this world of livings was wife of Samalu Manjhi, the appellant. She was earlier married to a person of village Tenughat and out of that wedlock, a male child (P.W. 3) was born. Thereafter, on being deserted by her first husband, she came to her mothers place and was again married to the appellant and a female child was born, but the relationship between the two was happy. 3. The first information report in this case was (Ext. 1) lodged by the deceased stating inter alia that on 30.7.1988 at about 9 P.M. when she came out of the house along with her eight years aged son (P.W. 3) to get him eased by the side of a maize field, with a Divia, the appellant who was hiding himself there from before, suddenly shot an arrow at her, which pierced in her abdomen, as a result of which, she fell down. Upon her cries, her mother (P.W. 1) and some neighbours (P.Ws. 2, 5 and 8) and others arrived and on being questioned as to how she had received an arrow shot, she narrated about the incident to them. The appellant, however, could not be apprehended as he managed to escape. In that state she was brought to her house, but as no conveyance was available, she was taken to Gola hospital on the following morning from where, she was referred to Ranchi Medical College and Hospital since her condition was serious and it was also difficult to take out the arrow from her abdomen. At Ranchi she was operated upon by Dr. Prasad (P.W.11), who with a great difficulty, took out the arrow, but in spite of his best effort, the deceased succumbed to her injuries on 2.8.1988, where after, postmortem examination was conducted by P.W. 10. 4. In course of investigation the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) visited the scene of the occurrence, which was found to be a maize field but no blood mark could be spotted as in the previous night there was heavy rains in that area. 4. In course of investigation the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) visited the scene of the occurrence, which was found to be a maize field but no blood mark could be spotted as in the previous night there was heavy rains in that area. After the completion of investigation, in due course, the trial was taken up with the result as indicated. 5. The appellant denied to have committed any offence. 6. The prosecution, in all examined 11 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 4, 6 and 7 have been tendered. There is nothing particular in there evidence to be discussed. The only material witnesses besides the three hearsay witnesses (P.Ws. 2, 5 and 8) are P.W. 3, the minor son of the deceased and his grand mother (P.W. 1), i.e. mother of the deceased. The substance of their evidence is that while the former was taken out by the deceased to get him eased, near a maize field, the incident had taken place. P.W. 3, the sole eyewitness to the occurrence stated in clear words that it was his father, who had shot an arrow at his mother in her abdomen. His evidence on material particulars was corroborated by his grand mother i.e. P.W. 1; who stated that on hearing cries of her daughter she came out and found her lying injured and also noticed the appellant, who escaped from that place and the victim told her that her (P.W. ls) son-in-law had hit an arrow shot at her abdomen. This is all the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 7. The fact that Dulari Majhiain died on being hit by an arrow, as found by the doctor (P.Ws. 10 and 11) admits of no doubt. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the prosecution case has not been disputed or challenged by the defence at any stage. Therefore, the prosecution by the evidence adduced; has established that the deceased had received an arrow shot in her abdomen in the night of the occurrence and subsequently two days after died at Ranchi Medical College and Hospital. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has been very much critical about the identification of the appellant mainly on two grounds viz. Therefore, the prosecution by the evidence adduced; has established that the deceased had received an arrow shot in her abdomen in the night of the occurrence and subsequently two days after died at Ranchi Medical College and Hospital. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has been very much critical about the identification of the appellant mainly on two grounds viz. (a) that as it was a dark night it was difficult either for the deceased or her minor son aged about 8 years, to identify the assailant particularly, when he was, concealing himself in a maize field and (b) in the facts and circumstances of the case the evidence of a child witness i.e., P.W. 3 should not be accepted, as it would be risky to act upon the sole uncorroborated testimony of a child. I have difficulty in accepting the points raised for the reasons given hereunder. 9. The story set out in the First Information Report which was undisputedly drawn up on the statement of the deceased clearly indicates that it was her husband, who, on account of strained relationship shot an arrow at the deceased hitting her abdomen when she came to the scene .of occurrence along with her son (P.W. 3) to get him eased. This statement of the deceased is fully corroborated by her son and her mother also. (P.W.1). Both, for the deceased and her son it was not difficult to identify the appellant in view of his relationship with them, particularly when there was means of identification also i.e. a Divia. 10. This is not all. Even her close neighbours (P.Ws 2, 5 and 8) who appeared immediately on hearing her cries also corroborated the story that on being asked by them the deceased gave out the name of her husband to be the assailant In this back ground, when the evidence of the son of the appellant P.W. 3 is examined, it leads to an irresistible conclusion that evidence bears a stamp of true. There is another aspect of the matter, which cannot be overlooked. The learned trial Judge also had taken all precaution to test the witness before his evidence was recorded and after putting some questions and on being satisfied that the witness was capable of making statement with full understanding, he recorded his evidence, which could not be displaced in cross-examination. There is another aspect of the matter, which cannot be overlooked. The learned trial Judge also had taken all precaution to test the witness before his evidence was recorded and after putting some questions and on being satisfied that the witness was capable of making statement with full understanding, he recorded his evidence, which could not be displaced in cross-examination. Thus, the two points raised respecting identification of the appellant must fail and it is fully established that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased in the manner as alleged. 11. The last point that has been raised is that in the fact and circumstances, the accusation against the appellant does fall within the purview of sec. 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Elaborating this part of the argument it is submitted that it is, not in controversy that the appellant was addicted to liquor, which is stated in the F.I.R. itself and that apart, the relationship between the husband and wife was also not cordial. It is further contended that the appellant quite likely, in a drunken state, in view of strained - relationship, in order to cause hurt to her, without intending to kill her, shot an arrow, which unfortunately pierced in her abdomen, a vital part and ultimately, proved to be fatal. It is accordingly stated that the intention of the appellant was not to kill her which is supported by the fact that he did not repeat the shot, although he had enough opportunity and that she died two days later and not instantaneously. 12. In view of the submissions, it has to be seen whether this case falls within the meaning of Part II, of section 304, Indian Penal Code as contended. There cannot be any dispute about it that it is not always possible that an arrow shot will cause death of a person and therefore, one has to judge the intention of the offender from the nature of the injury and the other acts done. In the facts and circumstances, it appears that no doubt the act committed by the appellant in all possibilities was likely to cause the death of the victim, but this appears to have been done without any apparent intention to cause the death of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, it appears that no doubt the act committed by the appellant in all possibilities was likely to cause the death of the victim, but this appears to have been done without any apparent intention to cause the death of the deceased. In this view of the matter, the contentions raised by the defence in this regard cannot be lightly brushed aside. 13. Thus regard being had, to the facts and circumstances, leading to the death of the deceased, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302, Indian Penal Code is altered to one u/s. 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code and he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 14. With the above modification, the appeal is dismissed.