JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted and sentenced Under Sections 302 & 324, Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 500/- as fine on the charge Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and one years rigorous imprisonment on the charge Under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts found to be proved against the appellant are that on 31.10.1990 at about 8.30 p.m. he shot arrows at Mahesh, Mega, Nanu and others who were travelling on a Tractor and a Trolley which was being driven by Nanu. At about 8.00 p.m. on that day on the Jolana Bus Stand Prabhu, Jagmal, Hardar and Ravji had quarrelled with Nanu. Prabhu is the nephew of appellant Bhoorji. After this quarrel the complainant party put Prabhu in the Tractor and according to them they were taking him to the member in the village obviously for handing him over to Law Enforcement Agency. When the tractor reached near the school Bhoorji with Arrows and Bow was seen in the front lights of the tractor. He shot 2, 3 arrows at the complainant party. One hit Moga, the other hit Nanu on his hand. Bhoorji ran away from the spot. Moga succumbed to his injuries. 3. The prosecution case was proved by PW 2 Mahesh who has lodged the FIR, PW 3 Nanu, the Driver of the tractor and PW 5 Gatu who were eye-witnesses. PW 6 Dr. Bharatlal who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased deposed that the deceased had received punctured wound in the abdomen and on the heart. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. There is other corroborative evidence on the record of recoveries of the bow and arrows, clothes etc. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR was belated and concocted after pre-meditation. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. There is other corroborative evidence on the record of recoveries of the bow and arrows, clothes etc. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR was belated and concocted after pre-meditation. It was also submitted that it was not possible for any of the members of the complainant party to have seen the appellant Bhoorji shooting the arrows as there was darkness outside and if the theory that appellant Bhoorji was sighted in the focus of the head-lights of the tractor it can be presumed that for a considerable time such a person dazzled in the eyes by the head-lights of the tractor would not be able to get his normal sight restored to be able to accurately shoot at the complainant party. It was also submitted that the possibility of the appellant having acted in private defence of person cannot be ruled out as admittedly his nephew Prabhu was being taken away in the tractor forcibly by the complainant party. If he has shot 2, 3 arrows in such a situation to rescue his nephew from confinement it can be said that he has acted in exercise of right of private defence of person and has not even exceeded that. Lastly it was argued that the intention to cause death cannot be attributed to the appellant in such circumstances. There was no specific previous enmity between the appellant and the complainant party and he could have no motive to cause death of any one of them. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and the sentence. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the record we find no reason to take a different view on facts as they have been found by the trial Court. The presence of the appellant on the spot is being cited by the witnesses. Shooting arrows has been amply proved by the eye-witnesses. The testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be brushed aside lightly only on assumption that the appellant could not have got his sight restored after being dazzled by the head-lights of the tractor. There is no basis for the conjecture that the appellant had directly looked at the light beaming from the head-lights of the tractor and had not avoided the glare. There is no basis for the conjecture that the appellant had directly looked at the light beaming from the head-lights of the tractor and had not avoided the glare. The fact is that appellant was named by eye-witnesses who knew him quite well and there was no doubt about the identity also. In such circumstances, we have no hasitation in holding that in fact the appellant had on the date and time of the incident shot the arrows at the complainant party. The question only is whether his action could be said to be covered by right of private defence and if so, whether he had exceeded that. It is clear from the circumstances proved that Prabhu was not being harmed by the complainant party physically. He was taken in the tractor after the altercation to take him to the member in the village, obviously for the purpose of handing him over to the police. This cannot be said to be abduction or wrongful confinement. Atleast this would not give right to the appellant to the extent of shooting arrows at the complainant party. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant's action is not saved by right of private defence. 6. On the question of whether the action would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Of course, there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. After all when there was no previous enmity between the appellant and the complainant party and when the appellant was not even present at the Jolana Bus Stand during the altercation which is said to be the basis of this offence, it cannot be presumed that Bhoorji had any intention to cause death of anyone from the complainant party. Of course, in certain cases intention can be inferred from the injuries caused, but in the cases where death is caused by shooting arrows it is difficult to infer intention of death unless the arrow has been shot clearly aiming at a person and a vital part of his body. In the present case no specific person was shown to be the target of the wrath of the appellant. It is, therefore, likely that he has shot arrows generally at the complainant party not aiming at a particular person. In the present case no specific person was shown to be the target of the wrath of the appellant. It is, therefore, likely that he has shot arrows generally at the complainant party not aiming at a particular person. Of course, though he had no intention to cause death but knowledge that his action was likely to cause death of any of the members of the complainant party can be presumed against the appellant. The case in our opinion, therefore, falls Under Section 304(2) and not Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. 7. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. Conviction and sentence Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code is set aside, and the appellant is held guilty of offence punishable Under Section 304(2), Indian Penal Code. His conviction and sentence Under Section 324, Indian Penal Code does not call for any interference and is, therefore, maintained. The appellant is in custody since 2.11.1990 and has passed over 5 years in custody. We, therefore, consider the sentence already undergone by the appellant as sufficient in the circumstances of the case and impose the same. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained under any lawful order.Appeal partly allowed. *******