By Court.- The sole appellant named above has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.1990 passed in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1988/130 of 1989 by Shri Sheo Dayal Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the F.I.R. of P.w. 2 Khepa Pahariya, the informant and the husband of Lakhi Paharin, the alleged victim of this case lodged before Maheshpur P.S. on 03.01.1988 at 00.30 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 2nd January, 1988 at 7.00 P.M. inside his house situate in village Bhilai Barmasia, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant Sonai Paharia @ Sonai Dehri always used to come to the house of the informant and he used to tell Lakhi Paharin that you have begotten a large number of children whereas he is not being blessed with any child and she is a witch and used to devour his children and as such he is not having any child. It is alleged that the appellant in anguish came to the house of the informant at 7.00 P.M. armed with bow and arrow and he shot an arrow at his wife Lakhi Paharin with intention to commit her murder and as a result of which she sustained injury on her abdomen and she fell down. It is further alleged that at the time of shooting the arrow the appellant was telling that he will commit the murder of Lakhi Paharin as he is not begetting any child due to her. It is also alleged that P.W.4 Shambhu Pahariya, P.w. 5, Laxman Pahariya and others have witnessed the occurrence. 4. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to the enmity existing and alive and the informant has greedy eyes to grab his property by falsely implicating him in this case. 5. The prosecution has in all examined ten witnesses to substantiate the prosecution case. 5. The prosecution has in all examined ten witnesses to substantiate the prosecution case. P.w. 2, Khepa Pahariya is the informant of this case and husband of P.w.1, Lakhi Paharin, the alleged injured of this case. P.w. 5, Laxman Pahariya and P.w. 3, Durga Dehri are the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 4, Shambhu Pahariya named in the F.I.R. of the informant as an ocular witness of the occurrence has been tendered. P.W. 8 has also been tendered in this case and P.w. 6 is a formal witness. P.w. 7, Dr. B.E.L. Thomas has conducted the operation regarding the injuries appearing on the person of the informant and his report in respect thereof is Ext. 2. Ext. 3/1 is the requisition of the I.O. regarding the treatment of P.w. 1 to Medical Officer, State Dispensary, Maheshpur which also contains the report of the said Medical Officer and Ext. 3 is the requisition of the I.O. to the Medical Officer, Hiranpur Mission for the treatment of the injured there on the reference of the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Pakur. P.w. 9, Dina Nath Ram and P.w. 10 Ram Sagar Sharma are the Investigating Officers of this case. One defence witness has also been examined. 6. Relying upon the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.w. 2 read with P.w. 3 and P.w. 5 corroborated by the medical evidence of P.w. 7, the learned court below came to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.w. 2 which casts a cloud of suspicion to the very warp and woof of the prosecution case and there is also existence of enmity between the informant on the one hand and the appellant on the other hand and the false implication of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be ruled out. It has also been submitted that all the witnesses who have taken oath for the prosecution are inter-se related and not independent witnesses of the vicinity of the place of occurrence. It has also been submitted that all the witnesses who have taken oath for the prosecution are inter-se related and not independent witnesses of the vicinity of the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that P.w. 7 is a private Doctor and the metallic portion of the arrow alleged to have been recovered from the abdomen of the informant has not been brought on the record and there is no legal evidence on the record to show as well as to prove the fact that the said metallic portion of the arrow has in fact pierced in the peritoneum of P.W.1, i.e. the injured of this case. It has also been contended that the I.O. has not found any mark of violence at the place of occurrence which contradicts regarding the occurrence having been taken place inside the house of the informant as alleged and the injury alleged to be appearing on the person of his wife may have been caused by an accidental fall on some pointed substance and thus the impugned judgment is unsustainable. Lastly. it has been submitted that this accused has remained in custody for more than two years and in the absence of any repetition and blows, the sentence awarded is very severe and in the facts and Circumstances of this case the sentence requires modification. 8. Refuting the contention aforesaid the learned A.P.P. has submitted that here in this case the assault by shooting arrow at P.w. 1 was with intention to commit her murder as this appellant was harbouring a grudge against her and was of the view that he is not begetting any child due to the witchcraft of P.W. 1 and with that premeditation an attempt was made to commit her murder by shooting arrow at her abdomen which is the vital part of the human body and it is just a chance that the said arrow only caused penetrating injury upto the peritoneum and the metallic portion of the arrow was removed 011 operation. It has also been submitted that P.w. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.w. 5 have materially corroborated the prosecution case and in the facts and circumstances of this case the operation conducted by P.W. 7 does not cast any doubt regarding the existence of the injuries on the person of the injured aforesaid. It has also been submitted that P.w. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.w. 5 have materially corroborated the prosecution case and in the facts and circumstances of this case the operation conducted by P.W. 7 does not cast any doubt regarding the existence of the injuries on the person of the injured aforesaid. It has also been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that here in this case the appellant has remained in custody for 21/4 years and, thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by the order of this Court and a lenient view in the matter may be taken in view of the fact that the assault is the result of superstition prevalent in the Scheduled Tribes and there is total absence of any repetition of blows in this case. 9. It will admit of no doubt that an occurrence has taken place at 7.00 P.M. on 02.01.1988 inside the house of P.W. 2, the informant when he was sitting there with P.W 3, Durga Dehri, P.W 5, Laxman Pahariya, P.W 4, Sambhu Pahariya and the wife of P.W. 2, Lekhi Paharin was present there. P.W 2 has deposed that he was smoking with them and the appellant came there armed with bow and arrow and he retorted that he will commit the murder of Lekhi Paharin due to the fact that he is not begetting any child due to her witchcraft and, thereafter, he shot an arrow at her causing penetration wound on her abdomen. P.W 1, Lekhi Paharin, the injured in this case, P.W 5 Laxman Pahariya and P.W 3, Durga Dehri in their evidence on oath have corroborated the testimony of P.W 2 in material particulars. P.W 2 has further deposed that the injured was taken to Maheshpur P.S. where the case was instituted and from there to the doctors at Maheshput, Pakur and lastly at Hiranpur where the injured was operated upon and the arrow was extricated from her abdomen. Ext. 3/1 shows that the Medical Officer, Maheshpur P.S. referred P.W 1, the injured of this case, on 03.01.1988 to Sadar hospital, Pakur for operation (Laparotomy) as there was no facility of operation existence at Maheshpur Primary Health Center. It further appears from Ext. 3 that the injured was referred by the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital to the Medical Officer In-charge, Hiranpur Mission Hospital for the treatment. It further appears from Ext. 3 that the injured was referred by the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital to the Medical Officer In-charge, Hiranpur Mission Hospital for the treatment. P.W 7, B.E.L. Thomas has deposed to have found the following injury on the person of P.W 2:- "Penetrating wound on the right central of her abdomen 1 1/2" x 1/4" x deep to perforate one loop of bowel. This injury is grievous and caused by arrow head." According to him the injury is grievous in nature and caused by sharp substance such as arrow. He has also deposed to have conducted the operation and has removed the arrow from the wound. The Medical Officer has deposed to have conducted the operation on 23.01.1988 i.e. about 20 days of the occurrence in question. The operation was conducted on 23.01.1988 at Hiranpur Mission Hospital due to time taken from going to one hospital to the other and finally at Hiranpur by the injured P.W 1. The said extricated metallic portion of the arrow was sent to the I.O. by Hiranpur Mission Hospital and it stands established by Ext. 5 which is the production-cum-seizure list in respect thereof witnessed by two independent witnesses whose signatures thereon are Ext. 1 and Ext. 1/1. Therefore, the non-production of that metallic portion of the arrow before the court cannot be viewed as a lacunae of the prosecution case in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is, therefore, established in view of the oral and documentary evidence on tile record that the assault on P'W1, the injured has been made by the appellant with intention to commit her murder under superstition. The appellant is an illiterate person living in the midst of environments reminiscent only of the dark ages and where gross ignorance and superstition prevailed and throughout whose life all opportunities of receiving education and enlightenment had been denied, wrongly believed that he is not begetting a child is a direct result of the influence of the evil shadow cast upon him by the appellant and in this superstitious state of mind he has shot an arrow at the injured causing an injury on her abdomen. Furthermore there is no repetition of blows by shooting arrows on the injured by the appellant. Furthermore there is no repetition of blows by shooting arrows on the injured by the appellant. To constitute an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the act of the appellant must be done with intention of causing death or that it was done with intention to cause such injury which the accused knew to be likely to cause death or is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Here in this case an arrow was shot on the abdomen of p.w. 2 which did penetrate in her abdomen though it did not cross peritoneum. The nature of the injury appearing on the person of P.W. 1 gives assistance in coming to the finding that assault on her by the appellant was with intention to commit her murder. Therefore, in view of the evidence on the record the learned court below has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and I see no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned court below in respect thereof. However, there is only one redeeming feature in this case i.e. absence of any repetition of blows. Considering the tribal background of the appellant and the superstition under which they live, a reference of which I have made above, the sentence of seven years awarded to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case is very excessive. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the parties that this appellant has remained in custody for more than 2 1/4 years and in this view of the matter the sentence of the appellant is hereby reduced to the period already gone and the impugned judgment is modified to that extent. 10. There is no merit in this appeal and it fails. The appeal is hereby dismissed modifying the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone.