Judgment L.P.Singh and P.N.Yadav JJ. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on the date of the occurrence at about 2.30 P.M. eight she buffaloes of Jagdish Mehta, Mahendra Mehta and Denalal Mahto were grazing in the land of Harihar Ram. At that time, it is alleged that the accused Ram Kishun Yadav, Sukhi Ray alongwith other persons came there armed with arrow, Bhala, Farsa and Lathi. They abused Jagdish Mahto and others. It has been stated that they also seized the cattle and brought them on the pitch road for impounding them. The informant, Sitaram Mahto came there and told them to release the seized cattle, Danalal Mahto, Laxman Mahto (deceased), Bisheshwar Mahto, Babujee Mahto, Mahendra Mahto and others also came in support of the informant. The accused Ram Kishun Yadav asserted that the catties were grazing Rahar and Bean plants in his field and he refused to release the same. Thereafter, there was some altercation between them. It has been alleged that in the meantime, two person suddenly emerged out of the house of Sukhi Rai they were armed with bow, arrow and farsa. One of the accused shot an arrow which hit right Panjra of Laxman Mahto sustaining injury as a result of which he fell down and died. It has also been stated that accused Ram Kishun Mandal also assaulted with lathi on the person of the informant who received injury on his palms and Danalal Mahto was also assaulted. 3. At that very time a constable Ram Bahadur Singh came from East on the pitch road. After seeing him, the accused persons fled away. 4. It has been also stated that in the meantime while this occurrence was going on one Jog Narain Lal Das proceeded to the police out post at Bhimnagar and informed the Sub-Inspector of Police regarding the occurrence and on that basis Sanha was entered and the S.I. also came there. 5. The injured persons, namely, the deceased Laxman Mahto, Danalal Mahto and the informant were taken on a Jeep of Satyanarain Ram to the Hospital. Thereafter, the statement of the informant Sitaram Mahto at about 5.30 P.M. on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged. 5. The injured persons, namely, the deceased Laxman Mahto, Danalal Mahto and the informant were taken on a Jeep of Satyanarain Ram to the Hospital. Thereafter, the statement of the informant Sitaram Mahto at about 5.30 P.M. on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons and on the basis of the chargesheet cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Ultimately, the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 6. The appellant pleaded not guilty and have stated that he has not variously implicated in the case. The prosecution in support of this case examined altogether 18 witnesses. 7. P.W. 1 is Dr. J. Lal. He has conducted the postmortem of the deceased Laxman Mahto, P.W. 2 is Bisheshwar Mahto, P.W. 3 is Babujee Mahto, P.W. 4 is Mahendra Mahto, P.W. 5 is Danalal Mahto, P.W. 6 is Anuplal Mahto, P.W. 7 is Jagdish Mahto. He is said to be the eye witness of the occurrence, P.W. 9 is Jog Narain Das, P.W. 10 is Satyanarain Mahto, P.W. 11 is Satyanarain Mahto. He is the formal witness. He has proved Ext. 5, P.W. 12 is Samiran Choudhary. He is also formal witness, P.W. 13 is Mahendra Singh. He is also a formal witness, P.W. 14 is Hari Narain Singh. He is a constable and he is a formal witness, P.W 15 is Kedar Singh. He is also a formal witness, P.W. 16 is Lal Babu Paswan. He is the I.O. of the case, P.W. 17 is Chandradeo Rai, Constable and P.W. 18 is Sidheshwar Narain Mishra. 8. P.W. 8, Sitaram Mahto is the informant of this case. He has supported the case of prosecution as stated in his fard beyan. According to him on the day of occurrence in the afternoon he was going to Bhim Nagar Market and when he came on the pitch road he saw eight she buffaloes grazing in the field of Ram Kishun, P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 were getting them grazing. At that very account, the accused persons variously armed with bows, arrow, bhala and lathi came there. Thereafter, they chased the persons were getting grazed the buffalo and after that they fled leaving the cattle in the field. 4, 5 and 7 were getting them grazing. At that very account, the accused persons variously armed with bows, arrow, bhala and lathi came there. Thereafter, they chased the persons were getting grazed the buffalo and after that they fled leaving the cattle in the field. According to him, all the eight buffaloes were seized by the accused persons and they were brought on the pitch road. He has stated that out of seized buffalo two belonged to him. As such he asked the accused Ram Kishun Yadav to release his cattle but he refused saying that they had grazed his Rahar crops and thereafter, they proceeded to impound the seized buffalo. According to him, he also requested the accused persons that the cattle should be released on acceptance of amount of damage caused to the crops. Thereafter, there was some altercation between them and other witnesses also came there to help the informant. He has stated that in the meantime, from the house of Sukhi Ram suddenly two Santhalis came out, one was with bow and arrow and the other with farsa. According to him, the Santhalis who was armed with bow and arrow shot arrow which hit the right chest (Panjra) of his brother Laxman Mahto as a result of which he fell down and died simultaneously. According to him, he himself received injury by accused Sukhi Rai with lathi, Danalal (P.W. 5) was also assaulted and he also fell down and became unconscious. He has further stated at very time, constable Ram Bahadur Singh of Bhim Nagar on a cycle reached at the place of occurrence and seeing him the accused persons fled away towards the north. According to him, at that very time, the Jeep of Satnarain Mahto (P.W. 10) arrived there and on that jeep he brought the deceased Laxman Mahto and injured Danalalto Birpur Hospital. The Officer-in-charge of Birpur, P.W. 16 Lalababu Paswan came in the Hospital and his fard beyan was recorded, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were also returning from Bhim Nagar and they have stated that when they reached near pitch road they saw the occurrence. The Officer-in-charge of Birpur, P.W. 16 Lalababu Paswan came in the Hospital and his fard beyan was recorded, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were also returning from Bhim Nagar and they have stated that when they reached near pitch road they saw the occurrence. According to him, there was exhange of words between the informant and the accused Ram Kishun Yadav they have stated that P.W. 8 was saying that the cattle has not grazed in the land of Ram Kishun Yadav rather had grazed in the land of Harihar Ram. They have also stated that the cattle was seized by the accused Ram Kishun Yadav. They have also stated that other accused persons were also there who were armed with bhala, farsa, lathi, bow and arrow. They have also stated while there was altercation between the accused and the informant, in the meantime accused Mangal Manjhi armed with bow and arrow and Phulchand armed with farsa came from towards the house of accused Sukhi Rai and accused Mangal Manjhi shot an arrow which hit the Panjra of Laxman Mahto as a resuilt of which he fell down and died. According to him, the informant Sitaram Mahto and Danalal Mahto have received injury by lathi. At that very time, the constable Ram Bahadur Singh came and having seeing him the accused persons fled away. 9. P.Ws. 4 Mahendra Mahto, P.W. 5 Danalal Mahto and P.W. 7 Jagdish Mahto, they have stated that they were present and getting she buffaloes grazed and on that account, the occurrence took place. According to them, there were exchange of words between the informant and the accused persons and arrow was shot at causing the death of the deceased Laxman Mahto. They have consistently stated that they were getting she buffaloes grazed in the Parti Landlord Harihar Ram but all accused abused them and chased them out and the buffaloes were surrounded by the accused Ram Kishun Yadav and were seized. They were also stated that when there was altercation between the informant and the appellant-the accused Mangal Manjhi and Phulchand suddenly came there. Mangal Manjhi was having armed with arrow and bows whereas Phulchand was armed with farsa. According to them, the accused Mangal Manjhi shot an arrow which hit the Panjara of Laxman Mahto as a result of which he fell down and died. 10. P.W. 9 is Jog Narain Das. He has. Mangal Manjhi was having armed with arrow and bows whereas Phulchand was armed with farsa. According to them, the accused Mangal Manjhi shot an arrow which hit the Panjara of Laxman Mahto as a result of which he fell down and died. 10. P.W. 9 is Jog Narain Das. He has. stated that at about 4.00 P.M. while he was going from his village home Lalpur towards market he saw exchange of hot words between the accused persons and the villagers of Lalpur. He has also stated that the accused persons were armed with bhala, lathi, bow and arrows. According to him, there was assault on account of grazing of she buffaloes. Seeing the gravity of the situation he went to Bhim Nagar Outpost and submitted a written information which has been granted as Ext. 5 and on its basis Sanha entry No. 379 dated 29.7.1975 at 5 P.M. was recorded. 11. P.W. 10 is Satyanarain Mehta. He is tendered witness, P.Ws. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are formal witnesses who have proved some documents. 12. P.W. 16 Lal Babu Paswan Is the I.O. of the case. He has also supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, he was posted as Officer-in-charge at Birpur Police Station. On that day, he received O.D. Slip. Thereafter, he proceeded to the hospital and he reached at 17.30 hours in the hospital. He has stated that he recorded the statement of the informant Sitaram Mahto (P.W. 8). The informant put his L.T.i. on his fard beyan (Ext. 10). The other witness Lalbabu Sah has also but his signature. He also saw the injuries on the person of the informant Sitaram Mahto and he also prepared the injury slip and referred the injured to the doctor for his examination. Thereafter, he saw the dead body of the deceased Laxman Mahto. He also stated that the inquest report which is Ext. 3. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased Laxman Mahto for postmortem examination. He also inspected the place of occurrence. He has given the full description of the same. He also recorded the statement of the other witnesses. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 13. P.W. 17 Chandradeo Rai is formal witness and has proved some material documents. He has produced Ext. I to I/II, Ext. II to ll/XII, Ext. II/XIII, Ext. Ill to lll/l, Ext. He has given the full description of the same. He also recorded the statement of the other witnesses. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 13. P.W. 17 Chandradeo Rai is formal witness and has proved some material documents. He has produced Ext. I to I/II, Ext. II to ll/XII, Ext. II/XIII, Ext. Ill to lll/l, Ext. II/XIV to ll/XXI and Ext. IV. 14. P.W. 18 is Sidheshwar Narain Mahto. He has stated that on 29.7.1975 he was S.I. at Bhim Nagar Police Outpost and he has informed by Jog Narain Lal Das about the occurrence, who gave a written statement which has been marked as Ext. 5 and on his statement the Sanha Entry No. 379 dated 29.7.1975 was entered which is Ext. 6. According to him, after the Sanha entry he alongwith the other S.l. went to the place of occurrence. 15. P.W. 1 is Dr. J. Lal, who had conducted the post-mortem examination of accused Laxman Mahto. According to him, he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Laxman Mahto and found the following Injury on his person: (I) Injury No. 1 lacerated would 2" x 1" entrylng the chest cavity In the fourth space of the lateral side of the right chest volve. The upper lob of the right lungs was lacerated of the size 6. 1" x 1" x 1". In the right side of the chest cavity half point blood was present. The arrow was removed from the lungs and it was sent in sealed cover to the Police Officer. The injury was antimortem fatal and caused by sharp pointed weapon such as arrow. Acording to the opinion of the doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries mentioned above. According to him, the injury was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tutored evidence of the witnesses cannot be believed and on their evidence the appellant cannot be convicted. It has further been submitted that there was no motive to indulge in the act of assault. The appellant is not named in the F.I.R. although the informant was at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tutored evidence of the witnesses cannot be believed and on their evidence the appellant cannot be convicted. It has further been submitted that there was no motive to indulge in the act of assault. The appellant is not named in the F.I.R. although the informant was at the place of occurrence. The further submission of the learned counsel is that the nature of injury also falsified the prosecution case as lacerated wound was found by the doctor (P.W. 1) whereas allegation is that the appellant assaulted with arrow. The person who prepared the inquest report did not find arrow in the dead body and persons of the certain witnesses at the place of occurrence does not seem probable. There is only one injury on the person of the deceased. 17. The witnesses of the occurrence P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 have all claimed that they had seen the occurrence. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 were getting their she buffaloes grazed in the field. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were returning from Bhim Nagar when the occurrence took place. As such P.Ws. 2 and 3 will be turned as chance witnesses P.W. 6 was loading wood on his Tyre cart nearby and saw the occurrence they all have stated that there was some altercation on point of grazing of she buffaloes which led to scuffle and marpit. The appellant and his party had grievances that the buffaloes of the informant Sitaram Mahto (P.W. 8) grazed the field of Ram Kishun Mahto. They caught hold of the buffaloes. They also wanted to take the buffaloes to Kanji house. On this issue, there was scuffle in which appellant including other co-accused also participated. The appellant Mangal Manjhi gave arrow bow from his bow which hit the deceased Laxman Mahto and he died. As such the statement of the eye witnesses are natural corroborative and cannot be said to be tutored as they claimed to have seen the occurrence and had stated what they have seen. 18. P.W. 1, the doctor J. Lal found a lacerated wound on the person of deceased, but had also opined that the injury was fatal and it was caused by sharp pointed weapon like arrow. He also extracted the arrow from the wound and sent to the police in a sealed cover which was exhibitted as Ext. 18. P.W. 1, the doctor J. Lal found a lacerated wound on the person of deceased, but had also opined that the injury was fatal and it was caused by sharp pointed weapon like arrow. He also extracted the arrow from the wound and sent to the police in a sealed cover which was exhibitted as Ext. 10. The arrow was removed from the lungs of the deceased Laxman Manjhi. As submission by the learned counsel that the prosecution does not get support from medical evidence which indicates that there was lacerated wound but from the medical evidence it is specifically clear that the injury was caused by arrow which was extracted from the wound of the deceased. From the cross-examination of P.W. 1 it also appears that this suggestion about the lacerated wound was not to be forth by the defence. The submission of the learned counsel that the other persons who were armed with arrow also but from the occular evidence it is clear that this appellant Mangal Manjhi shot arrow from his bow which hit the deceased Laxman Manjhi who dropped down immediately and died. So far none mention of arrow in inquest report could only be due to removal of wooden portion of the arrow head has been later removed from the body of the deceased after postmortem examination. 19. The other submission of the learned counsel that though the informant P.W. 8 was present at the time of occurrence but he did not give the name of this appellant in his fardbeyan but it appears that the appellant Mangal Manjhi was Labourer and was not belonging to same Tola of the village of the informant and the informant might not have knowing his name. This does not affect the prosecution case since the other witnesses have consistently and specifically stated that the appellant Mangal Manjhi shot arrow which caused injury to the deceased Laxman Manjhi and he died. 20. The motive becomes irrelevant and it has no important role to play when there is direct evidence to establish commission of an offence. In the instant case there is direct, cogent and reliable evidence corroborated by objective findings of the I.O. As such on the point of commission of crime no motive is required to be proved. 21. 20. The motive becomes irrelevant and it has no important role to play when there is direct evidence to establish commission of an offence. In the instant case there is direct, cogent and reliable evidence corroborated by objective findings of the I.O. As such on the point of commission of crime no motive is required to be proved. 21. From the evidence of the witnesses adduced, it is manifest that on the date of occurrence in the afternoon 8-10 buffaloes were grazing near the land of accused Ram Kishun Yadav and had also straved in his land in which Rahar and Bean crops were grown. The accused Ram Kishun Yadav and other accused persons had seized the she buffaloes near their house for taking them to find when the informant and other witnesses came and there was hot exchange of words between the informant and appellant. The informant had also proposed to pay the damage cost in lieu of the grazing but accused Ram Kishun Yadav declined to accept any damage, while the hot exchange of words was going on. Apppellant Mangal Manjhi and Phulchand Manjhi emerged from the house of appellant Sukhi Rai. The appellant Mangal Manjhi was armed with bow and arrows while the other accused was armed with farsa. The appellant Mangal Manjhi shot an arrow hitting on the right side (Panjara) of the deceased Laxman mahto as a result of which he fell down and died staneously. Since the arrow is a dangerous weapon and had also inflicted on vital part of the body like chest and had entered chest cavity resulting in the instant death as such it is evident that the appellant Manal Manjhi had shot the arrow with the intention of causing the death of the deceased and is liable for an offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the learned court below on appreciatioin of the evidence so adduced convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Penal Code. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below is hereby upheld. 22. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.