JUDGMENT Prosecution case, stated in brief, was that on 5.3.87 appellants had gone to attend a 'Nukta' It is alleged that around at 5 p.m. when they were still on their way; a quarrel ensued between one Kakadia and the appellants. Thavaria the injured intervened and sustained an arrow injury allegedly shot by appellant Nanlia. A report was lodged at police station Alirajpur on the same day which is Ex. P.l. The injured was rushed to the hospital where he was examined by Dr. Ajaysingh Tomar (P.W. 4), who found two punctured wounds one of entry and the other of exit, on his body. As per injury report Ex. P.7 these injuries were described as 'dangerous to life'. Going through the evidence of Dr. Ajay (p.q. 4)it could well be seen that this witness in no way in his statement has stated that the injuries as found, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that conviction under Sec. 307, I.P.C. as recorded by the trial Court, cannot be sustained. There is total lack of evidence about the injury being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Even if this argument is accepted as it ought to be, the appellants are not totally absolved of their acts. Shri Jain learned counsel appearing for the State urges that they can still be found guilty for an offence punishable under Sec. 323,I.P.C. So far as evidence of shooting of arrow is concerned, Ku. M. Bhatia learned counsel appearing for appellant Tantia, pointing to the first information report (Ex.P.1) and that the evidence of Thavaria P.W.1 submitted that there is apparent inconsistency in the initial version as contained in the first information report and the evidence. At one stage Thavaria p.w.1 in his cross examination has admitted that so far as appellant Tantia is concerned, he had not committed any act whatsoever,either of shooting or even of exhorting (ABHIYUKT ATANTIA NE MUJHA PAR TEER NAHIN CHALAYA ABHIYUKTA TANTIA NE MUJHE KUCHHA NAHIN KAHA). Admittedly arrow was shot from behind and it was appellant Nanlia who had shot the arrow. It was for this reason that an argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Tantia that he could not have seen that as to who had shot an arrow. Admittedly arrow was shot from behind and it was appellant Nanlia who had shot the arrow. It was for this reason that an argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Tantia that he could not have seen that as to who had shot an arrow. The evidence of other witness Guman whom the trial Court has treated as an independent and reliable witness has clearly stated that Thavaria was being chased and in further cross examination of Thavaria there is a reference to such chasing by both the appellants. Although this fact is not found in Ex. P. 1 (FIR) but the witness PW. 1 is very emphatic about Nanlia-shooting an arrow. So far as appellant Tantia is concerned, evidence available on record is not sufficient to hold him guilty of the charge punishable under Sec. 307/34, I.P.C. except for the fact that he was found to be present on the spot and there was reason for him to be there as he was also on his way to attend a 'Nukta'. It cannot, therefore, be said that appellant Tantia was sharing the common intention along with other accused Nanlia. . In view of the foregoing discussion the conviction of appellant Tantia as recorded by the trial Court, cannot be allowed to sustain. It is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. But what holds good in case of appellant Tantia, it does not hold good in case of Nanlia. He is the person against whom there is over whelming evidence on record supported by the F.I.R. and the medical evidence apart from Guman P.W. 2. He is, therefore, found guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 326, I.P.C. instead of Sec. 307/34, I.P.C. as recorded by the trial Court and is sentenced to undergo the term of imprisonment as imposed by the trial Court, that is three years. Appellant Nanlia shall surrender to his bail bonds and serve out the sentence as imposed. The bail bonds of appellant Tantia stand discharged.