JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S. T. Case No. 150 of 1993 for committing the murder of Sambari Dei, the wife of Anam, P.W.1. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the rela¬tionship between the appellant and Anam (P.W.1) was not cordial because of existence of land dispute. On 3.5.1993 Anam (P.W.1) and his wife Sambari went to the house of one Saluka Purty (not examined) at about 5 p.m for drinking handia. When they were returning home at about 6 p.m, the appellant shot an arrow at Sambari which pierced the left side of her abdomen. Anam (P.W.1) raised hullah and chased the appellant but could not catch him. Anam (P.W.1) and Bisu (P.W.2) carried the injured Sambari to the cow-shed of Anam where she succumbed to the injury. Next morning Balaram (P.W.3) lodged the F.I.R. 3. The plea of the appellant was one of denial. 4. Prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of the charge. Anam (P.W.1) is the sole eye witness. Bisu (P.W. 2) is a post-occurrence witness. P.W.4 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased Sam¬bari. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 found the appellant guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder. 5. There is no dispute that the deceased Sambari had a homicidal death. The doctor(P.W.4) who conducted autopsy on the dead-body found a lacerated injury 1 x 1/2 situated left 8th intercostal space on mid axillay line. According to him the death of the deceased occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the said injury. In the cross-examination he stated that the arrow had pierced the abdominal part of the deceased. 6. The next crucial question is whether the appellant shot the arrow at Sambari causing her death. Anam (P.W.1) de¬posed that while he and his wife Sambari were returning home after taking handia on the date of occurrence at about 5 p.m. on the way Sambari sat near a Kusum tree to attend call of nature. At that time the appellant shot an arrow at Sambari which pierced her left side abdomen. When he shouted for help, the appellant ran away from the place. At that time the appellant shot an arrow at Sambari which pierced her left side abdomen. When he shouted for help, the appellant ran away from the place. This witness was cross-examined at length but nothing substantial was brought out to discredit his sworn testimony. Bisu (P.W.2) is a post-occurrence witness.He deposed that when he was in his house, he heared hullah raised by P.W.1 who was shouting that the appellant shot arrow at his wife. Hearing the hullah he came out of his house and found the appel¬lant running and P.W.1 chasing him. He noticed that the deceased Sambari lying near the Kusumtree with an arrow pierced inside her abdomen. She was profusely bleeding. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest as to why he would falsely implicate the appellant in the commission of the offence. 7. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. We have no hesitation to hold that it was the appellant who shot arrow at Sambari causing her death. 8. Counsel for the appellant contended that there was only one arrow shot and the action would not warrant conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. It cannot be laid down as a universal proposi¬tion that merely because there was one injury, the offence would come under Section 304 Part-I or under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. It depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. From the evidence of Anam (P.W.1) it is quite clear that his wife deceased Sambari was attending call of nature near the tree. At that moment the appellant shot the arrow aiming at her resulting in her death. The above circumstance does not bring in any of the exceptions of Section 300 I.P.C. and, therefore the appellant has rightly been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. 9. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. S. BARMAN ROY, C.J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.