JUDGMENT : N.Y. Hanumanthappa, C.J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.11.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, in S.T. Case No. 76 of 1991 thereby convicting the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo Imprisonment for Life. 2. The case of the persecution is as follows: The accused/appellant and Nathu Munda, the deceased, were agnatic brothers. They belong to tribal area living in interior place under Nayakote Pollee Station in the district of Keonjhar. They were living separately in their houses at Gunia Sahl, a hamlet of village Podadlhi. There were two pumpkin trees near their houses. Quarrel started between the two regarding sharing of pumpkins. During the course of quarrel, the accused being enraged went inside his house and came out with a bow and arrow and shot an arrow at the deceased which pierced inside the belly of the deceased, who fell down. Efforts were made to put the arrow out of the belly, but in that process the wooden portion of the arrow broke and the iron portion remained inside. While the deceased was carried. to the hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injury near village Dudhaposi. P.W. 1, Chemuru Chaudhury, a co-villager, lodged oral information about the occurrence at Bansapal Out Post under Nayakote P.S. The same was reduced into writing by the I.O. (P.W.6). The contents of the complaint were read over and explained to P.W. 1, who having understood the same put his L.T.I.P. W. 6 treated the report as F.I.R. and took up investigation. The dead body was taken to the hospital where post-mortem was conducted and the Doctor (P.W. 4) gave his opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased. After completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet u/s 302, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate after going through the case diary and the materials obtained during investigation found the case to be one u/s 302, I.P.C. and accordingly committed the case to-the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, took cognisance of the offence and framed charge u/s 302, I.P.C. against the accused. The charge being read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same. Accordingly, evidence was led in. 3. On behalf of the Prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined. The learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, took cognisance of the offence and framed charge u/s 302, I.P.C. against the accused. The charge being read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same. Accordingly, evidence was led in. 3. On behalf of the Prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 is Chamuru Chaudhury; P.W. 2 is Muni alias Sambari Munda; P.W. 3 is Arjuna Sethi; P.W. 4 is Dr. Karunakar Sahu P.W. 5 is Yadan Mohan Patra; P.W. 6 is Sarat Chandra Mohanty and P.W. 7 is Padmalochan Jaipuria. Exts. 1 to 12 were marked for the prosecution. Ext. 1 is the seizure-list showing seizure of broken piece of arrow; sample earth and blood-stained earth. Ext. 2 is the Inquest report of the doctor (P.W. 4) to the query by the police. Ext. 5 is the seizure-list showing seizure of bow. Ext. 6 is the F.I.R. Ext. 7 is the Station Diary Entry. Ext. 8 is the command certificate. Ext. 9 is the dead body challan. Ext. 10 is the spot map. Ext. 11 is the seizure-list showing seizure of broken piece of arrow and the wearing apparels of the deceased. Ext. 12 is the report of the Serologist. M.O.I. is the tail (wooden) portion of the arrow. M.O. II is the iron portion of the arrow. M.O. III is the bow. M.O.IV is the blood-stained Lungi and M.O. v. is the blood stained shirt. 4. P.W. 1 Chamuru Chaudhury is a co-villager of both accused and deceased. He stated that on a Tuesday morning, i.e. on the date of incident, he heard the cries of deceased's mother and sister. Hearing the same, he went to the house of the deceased. When he went there he found that an arrow had been pierced to the belly of the deceased resulting profuse bleeding. At that time the deceased Nuthu Munda was at the point of death on account of piercing of arrow inside his belly. When he asked the mother of the deceased as to how it happened, she replied that in respect of a pumpkin three there was dispute between the accused and deceased and in course of the quarrel, the accused shot the arrow from his bow resulting piercing of the same into the belly of the deceased. When he asked the mother of the deceased as to how it happened, she replied that in respect of a pumpkin three there was dispute between the accused and deceased and in course of the quarrel, the accused shot the arrow from his bow resulting piercing of the same into the belly of the deceased. He was asked by the mother to report the matter to Police babu and accordingly he proceeded to Banspal Out Post and reported orally about the occurrence before the Police babu at the Out Post which was reduced to writing. The contents of the same were read over and explained to him and after having understood the same, he put his L.T.I.P.W. 2 Muni alias Sambari Munda stated that Jada Munda is her father and Mahali Munda, the father of accused Diburu Munda is the elder brother of the father. The accused is her agnatic brother and the deceased was her own brother. She spoke about the dispute between the accused and the deceased over pumpkin trees, so also the quarrel and the accused going inside his house, bringing a bow and arrow and shooting the arrow at the deceased which pierced inside his belly. In the cross-examination nothing which goes against the prosecution was elicited. P.W. 3, Arjun Sethi is a seizure witness to seizure of bloodstained earth, sample earth and broken piece of arrow from the spot as per Ext. 1. P.W. 4 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination in respect of the dead body of the deceased Nuthu Munda. He found injuries and gave opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased. According to him, injury No. 1, namely external injury on the left side of abdomen close, to and at the level of umbilicus long and 3/4" wide over full abdominal thickness was simple in nature, but the internal injuries, namely: (i) The soft tissues, rectus muscle and peritoneum is cut opposite injury No. (i) of 11/2" long and 3/4" wide of full abdominal thickness. (ii) Outer coat of small intestine 5" below duodenum is lacerated by the metal piece of the arrow. (iii) The my sentery of the small intestine at the level of injury No. (ii) is cut. 2 small mysenteric vessels are cut which is covered by a deep firmly adherent blood clot are dangerous. (ii) Outer coat of small intestine 5" below duodenum is lacerated by the metal piece of the arrow. (iii) The my sentery of the small intestine at the level of injury No. (ii) is cut. 2 small mysenteric vessels are cut which is covered by a deep firmly adherent blood clot are dangerous. The iron portion of the arrow (M.O.II) which is a part of M.O.I responsible for the injuries was found in tact in the body of the deceased and was removed during post-mortem examination. According to him all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature. He proved the post-mortem report marked Ext. 3. P.W. 5 is a witness to the seizure of bow (M.O.III). According to him the accused led the police to his house wherefrom he gave recovery of the bow which was seized as per,Ext. 5. P.W. 6 was the A.S.I. of Police attached to Banspal Out Post at the relevant time. He stated that P.W. 1 gave oral report which was reduced to writing by him and P.W. 1 on being read over and explained the contents of the report and after having understood the same, put his L.T.I. thereon. The said report was treated as F.I.R. which was marked as Ext. 6. In his statement before the Court, he had given vivid account of the investigation of the case made by him and handing over charge of the case to the O.I.C. of Nayakote P.S., namely Padmalochan Jayapuria (P.W. 7). P.W. 7 took up further investigation into the case and finally submitted charge sheet against the accused. 5. The trial judge after closure of the prosecution evidence examined the accused u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure Again the accused took the plea of denial. 6. The trial judge after analysing the entire evidence found that the accused was responsible for causing death of the deceased by shooting at him with bow and arrow which-pierced inside the belly of the deceased. According to him, the complaint lodged was corroborated by the statement of the witness, namely P.W. 1 who after hearing the cries of the deceased's mother and sister went to their house and on enquiry came to know as to what happened. So also, P.W. 2. According to him, the complaint lodged was corroborated by the statement of the witness, namely P.W. 1 who after hearing the cries of the deceased's mother and sister went to their house and on enquiry came to know as to what happened. So also, P.W. 2. He also made reference to the evidence of P.W. 4 the doctor, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report as per Ext. 3. According to the trial judge, the evidence is clinching in order to connect the accused with the offence alleged. Accordingly, the trial judge convicted the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder to imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal by the Appellant from Jail. 7. Mr. Priyambada Sahu, Advocate, who is present in Court, was requested by us to appear on behalf of the Appellant and assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He was given opportunity to go through the entire records of the case. After going through the records, he has submitted that the conviction of the accused u/s 302, I.P.C. is quite incorrect and the sentence imposed cannot be sustained. According to him. P.W. I cannot be described as eye witness. Prosecution did not explain as to why the mother and the sister of the deceased were not examined. The trial judge should not have relied upon the F.I.R. as the same is a concocted one. The corresponding injury and the cause of death of the deceased as opined by the doctor are different. When there was no evidence to establish the intention of the accused, mere quarrel over pumpkin trees is not sufficient to attribute to the accused that he intended to kill the deceased. Even if it was accepted that he was provoked because of the quarrel and he went inside his house, brought bow and arrow and shot the arrow at the deceased, that does not mean that the accused had any intention to kill the deceased, or while using it, it is incorrect to say that he had the knowledge that the arrow which he is using may result death of the person at whom it is shot. It is also stated that there in much discrepancy and inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution which was not considered. It is also stated that there in much discrepancy and inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution which was not considered. The trial judge should not have laid much emphasis on recovery of the M.O.III, the bow, at the instance of the accused. According to him, the seizure or recovery or even confession cannot be the basis of conviction. Thus contending, he states that the appeal be allowed, the conviction and sentence be set aside and the accused be set at liberty. 8. Mr. Debasis Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, supported the conviction and sentence ordered by the Court below. According to him, the trial Court read the entire evidence and found that it was the accused, who is responsible for the death of the deceased as he shot the arrow aiming at the deceased. Further he supported the medical opinion that the death was on account of injury due to piercing of the arrow inside the belly of the deceased. The fact that during quarrel the accused went inside his house, brought bow and arrow and shot an arrow aiming at the deceased suggested that his intention was to kill the deceased. The shooting was without any provocation. There is consistency it the oral and documentary evidence. Thus contending, he states that the appeal be dismissed. 9. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record as well as the findings and reasonings recorded by the trial Court. So far as the incident is concerned, there is no dispute that it has to be accepted that in course of the quarrel the accused brought bow and arrow and shot an arrow at the deceased. It has also to be accepted that death was due to piercing of the arrow which was shot by the accused. This is supported by the opinion of the doctor given in the Post-mortem report. The Post-mortem report (Ext. 3) reads as under: EXTERNAL INJURY: (1) A transversely place elliptical penetrating wound on the left side of abdomen close to and at the level of umbilicus 1/2%" wide in the middle and 5" deep. A rounded wood (SARA) of 1 c.m. diameter entered into the abdomen at 90? to the skin intact in the round and is 31/2" outside abdomen. One loop of gangrenous omentum coming out through the wound. A rounded wood (SARA) of 1 c.m. diameter entered into the abdomen at 90? to the skin intact in the round and is 31/2" outside abdomen. One loop of gangrenous omentum coming out through the wound. INTERNAL INJURIES: (2) The Soft tissue, rectus muscle and peritoneum is cut opposite injury No. 1 of 1 x 1/2' x full tickness. (3) Outer coat of small intestine 5 feet below duodenum is lacerated by the metal piece of the arrow. (4) The mysentery of the small intestine at the leve of Injury No. 3 is cut. Two small mysenteric vessels are cut which is covered by a big firmly adherent blood clot. Injury No. 1 is simple. Injuries 2 to 4 are dangerous. All are caused by the arrow found in tact in body. Removed during P.M. Examination. All at of ante mortem in nature. CAUSE of DEATH - Haemorrhage resulting from all above injuries particularly from injury No. 4. i.e. the cut mysenteric vessels. The contention raised by Mr, Sahu regarding discrepancy, inconsistency or contradiction in the evidence is not of much significance. The trial Court, in fact, considered the effect of the same. It appears that what weighed much in the mind of the trial Court was that when the quarrel took place over the pumpkin trees, the accused went inside, the house, brought bow and arrow and shot at the deceased, which means that he had the intention to shoot the arrow at the deceased. This at best suggests that the accused can be convicted for the offence u/s 304, Part I. If the trial Court had scanned the evidence properly, he would have come to the conclusion that the Appellant-accused committed an offence punishable u/s 304, Part-I and not u/s 302, I.P.C. Accordingly, we hold that the accused is liable to be convicted u/s 304, Part-I, Indian Penal Code. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is submitted that the accused is in jail right from the date of his arrest, i.e. from 1991. Therefore, he has suffered imprisonment for about ten years. We accordingly feel that the period already undergone is sufficient. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated. The Appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. Final Result : Allowed