Honble MATHUR, J.–This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.9.92 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi convicting the appellant Movna for offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence u/S. 436/34 IPC and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-in default of payment to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. (2). The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is as follows:- The appellant Movna suspected that his father Badaji was murdered by deceased Mithia. On 25th March 91 he alongwith Babla went to the house of deceased Mithia armed with arrow and bow. Mithia was standing outside his house. They abused Mithia and said that they will kill him as he has murdered the appellants father Badaji. Appellant Movna took out arrow from the bow and shoot, which struck Mithia on his left side of the chest. Mithia cried, which attracted his mother P.W. 1 Bhikhi and brother P.W.3 Taria. P.W. 2 Movna S/o Taria also arrived there. Many people from the accused party also assembled there. It is alleged that the accused persons put the house of Mithia to fire. The incident of fire was witnessed by P.W. 5 Narain Lal. Taria etc. Mithia was taken to the hospital at Pindwara for treatment. Meanwhile, the SHO, Police Station, Pindwara received information of the incident and as such he also reached on the spot. P.W. 15 Jalam Singh reached at the hospital. He recorded the statement of Mithia vide Ex. P/23. On that basis of that statement, FIR Ex.P/1 was registered for offence u/s. 307 and 436 IPC. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against appellant Movna and accused Babla. (3). The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him. The prosecution in support of the case examined 19 witnesses. The appellant in his statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. Analysing the evidence, the trial court held the appellant Movna guilty of offence u/S. 302 IPC and sentenced as noticed above. Another accused Babla has been acquitted of offence u/S. 302 IPC, however he has been convicted for offence u/S. 436 IPC. The appellant in his statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. Analysing the evidence, the trial court held the appellant Movna guilty of offence u/S. 302 IPC and sentenced as noticed above. Another accused Babla has been acquitted of offence u/S. 302 IPC, however he has been convicted for offence u/S. 436 IPC. Accused Babla has not challenged the conviction u/S. 436 IPC. (4). We have heard Mr. B.N. Calla, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have perused the record carefully. (5). P.W. 8 Dr. V.K. Purohit has stated that he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Mithia and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Punctured wound 1x 1 cm. on surface just medial to left areola. Track pointing medially and posteriorly. Underneet wound & along track in surrouding tissue haemorrhage present. (2) 1. cm. long stitched wound 1 c.m. medial to injury no. 1. It is communicating to the track of injury no. 1. (6). He has proved the Post Mortem Report Ex. P/17. In his opinion, Movna died of shock due to massive internal haemorrhage. (7). P.W. 11 Dr. Rikhabchand Loonkar has stated that he had examined Mithia on 25.03.91 at Government Hospital, Pindwara. On his person, he found the following injuries vide Ex. P/22, which are as under:- (1) Punctured wound one and half cm. x half cm. x cavity deep on left side of chest. (2) Feeling of hard thing at entry of wound seems to be arrow inside. Continue blood is coming from wound, (8). He also stated that he has found a hard thing at the entry of the wound. The injury report also shows that the arrow was taken out from the chest by the doctor, who attended the deceased Mithia at the Hospital. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. (9). The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Mst. Bhikhi, P.W. 2 Movna and P.W. 3 Taria as eye witnesses. (10). P.W. 1 Mst. Bhikhi has stated that deceased Mithai was her son, P.W. 3 Taria is also his son and P.W. 2 Movna S/o Taria is her grand son. She also stated that they all live together in Guwari. In the morning at about 7, she heard the cries of his son Mithia. (10). P.W. 1 Mst. Bhikhi has stated that deceased Mithai was her son, P.W. 3 Taria is also his son and P.W. 2 Movna S/o Taria is her grand son. She also stated that they all live together in Guwari. In the morning at about 7, she heard the cries of his son Mithia. She rushed to the site. His grand son Movna also rushed to the site. She also stated that accused Movna and Babla were carrying arrow and bow in their hands. Both the accused persons shoot the arrow at his son Mithia. The arrow shooted by Movna struck the deceased Mithia. After the arrow struck to his son, he fell down. She also stated that accused tried to pull out arrow from the chest of the deceased Mithia, but it was broken and only ``Doka came in his hand. The blade of the arrow remained in the body of the deceased Mithia. She also stated that his son Taria also arrived on the spot. She has also stated that accused persons put their house to fire. She stated that Movna suspected that his father was killed by deceased Mithia. She went to the hillock and raised a cry that his son Mithia has been killed, which attracted many village people including her husband Narain and daughter Kemi. The fire was extinguished and Mithia was taken to the hospital at Pindwara. On the advise of the doctor, from Pindwara he was taken to Sirohi. Mithia succumbed to the injuries in the hospital at Sirohi. (11). P.W. 2 Movna s/o Taria has stated that on hearing the cries of his uncle Mithia, he rushed to the site and found that appellant Movna and other accused Babla were carrying arrow and bow in their hands. he also stated that appellant Movna told Mithia that as he has killed his father, he will also kill him. Thereafter, both the accused persons shooted arrow at Mithia. The arrow shooted by Movna hit on the chest of Mithia. He also stated that appellant Movna went to his uncle Mithia and tried to pull out the arrow from the chest, but he failed to take out the entire arrow remained inside the chest and broken piece of arrow came to the hand of the appellant Movna. He also stated that the appellant Movna and other accused Babla put their house to fire. He also stated that the appellant Movna and other accused Babla put their house to fire. His further statement is almost in the line of P.W. 1 Mst. Bhikhi. The statement of P.W. 3 Taria is almost in the line of P.W. 1 Mst. Bhikhi and P.W. 2 Movna S/o Taria. (12). It is submitted by Mr. Calla that all the eye witnesses have stated that appellant Movna and Babla were armed with arrow and bow. Both of them shoot arrow at Mithia. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was only the arrow of Movna, which hit the Mithia. We find no substance in the contention as in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 Mst. Bhikhi, has categorically stated that arrow shooted by Babla did not hit the deceased Mithia. She further stated that it was only the arrow shooted by Movna, which hit Mithia. There is a similar statement in the cross-examination of P.W. 2 Movna S/o Taria. In spite of long cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to dis-credit the testimony of these three eye witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Mst. Bhikhi, P.W. 2 Movna and P.W. 3 Taria. Thus in our opinion, all the three witnesses have been rightly relied upon by the trial court. Apart from the testimony of the three eye witnesses, there is a dying declaration vide Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.37. The dying declaration Ex.P/37 has been recorded by P.W. 17 Shri K.C. Khandelwal, M.J.M., Sirohi. He has stated that he recorded the statement of Mithia in the Government Hospital, Sirohi at 3.30 p.m. He also stated that before recording the statement, he obtained a fitness certificate from Dr. Rajendra Arora. There is an endorsement on Ex.P/37 that the injured is in fit condition to give statement. He also stated that he had taken the statement of deceased Mithia in question-answer form. Mithia in his dying declaration has stated that Movna S/o Bada shoot arrow at him. He also stated that Babla was with the appellant Movna. It was further stated that Movna suspected that he had killed his father Badda. The occular testimony and the dying declarations finds corroborated by the medical evidence. (13). Turning to the nature of offence, it is contended by the learned counsel that the offence committed by the appellant amount to culpable homicide not amounting to the murder, in as much as he inflicted only a single injury. The occular testimony and the dying declarations finds corroborated by the medical evidence. (13). Turning to the nature of offence, it is contended by the learned counsel that the offence committed by the appellant amount to culpable homicide not amounting to the murder, in as much as he inflicted only a single injury. In support of the contention, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in Kala vs. State of Rajasthan (1). We have carefully gone through the said case. There is no invariable rule that in all cases of death by single injury, the offence will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court has to take into consideration the attending circumstances such as, sudden quarrel, grappling etc. to assess the mind of the accused whether the accused had intention to cause particular injury. The evidence shows that appellant Movna went to the house of deceased Mithia armed with arrow and bow. Not only this, he told him that as he has killed his father, he will kill him. Thus, there is a clear eviden-ce that the appellant Movna shoot arrow at deceased Mithia with an intention to cause his death. Thus, we find no substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant. In our view, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant Movna for offence u/S. 302 IPC. As far as the conviction of the appellant Movna u/S. 436 IPC is concerned, all the three eye witnesses have categorically stated that appellant Movna joined Babla in putting fire to the house of the deceased. In view of this, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for offence u/S. 436/34 IPC. (14). In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed. The appellant Movna is in jail. He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence.