JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 12th May 1997 passed by learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Udala, in S.T. Case No. 10/66 of 1996 convicting the Appellants u/s 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each in default to undergo R.I. for two months is assailed in this Crl. Appeal. 2. The criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an F.I.R. filed by P.W.1. He stated that learning from his brother Madhusudan Panda (P.W.11) that on the night of 26th September, 1995 there was a theft in the house of his brother at village Mauda he went to the village to ascertain the fact. Next day morning he left village Mauda and when he was near village Dhudhianal the accused persons being armed with arrow, lathi, etc. intercepted him saying that "Sala Brahman Ku Marideba Brahman Bansaku Nipat Kari Deba". Out of fear P.W.1 went inside Bangali Sahi of Prafullachandrapur and entered into the house of one Budhia. After some time P.W.1 proceeded towards the house of his brother, P.W.2 when the accused persons caught hold of him and dealt fist blows, kicks and assaulted with lathi. Out of pain he shouted. His brother P.W.11 and Pradip Panda (not examined as witness), came to the spot, but as the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons they could not rescue the informant. The informant, however, it is alleged, escaped from the clutches of the accused persons and entered inside the Bari of P.W.2. At that juncture he heard, Chittaranjan Panda (P.W.2) shouting "Marigali Marigali, Mote Maridele". On hearing shouts of P.W.2, the informant came to the spot and found the accused persons coming out of the house of P.W.2. He also noticed an arrow having pierced the right chest of P.W.2 and there was profuse bleeding and another arrow having pierced a wall of the house. P.W.2, it is alleged, told the informant that Trilochan Mallik (Appellant No. 4) had shot the arrow to kill him. Trying to check the bleeding by help of Laxmidhar Naik (P.W.10) and his son, P.W.2 was shifted to Udala Hospital and then he was referred to Baripada Hospital for treatment. P.W.2, it is alleged, told the informant that Trilochan Mallik (Appellant No. 4) had shot the arrow to kill him. Trying to check the bleeding by help of Laxmidhar Naik (P.W.10) and his son, P.W.2 was shifted to Udala Hospital and then he was referred to Baripada Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the incident was reported at Udala P.S. and Udala P.S. Case No. 73 /1995 was registered. The said case was subsequently converted to G.R. Case No. 194/1995. After investigation police submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons and the case was committed to the Court of session. 3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution got fourteen witnesses examined. Out of whom P.W.1 was the informant, P.W.2 was the brother of the informant and the injured. P.W.3 was the son of P.W.2, P.Ws.4, 9 and 10 were independent witnesses, P.W.5 was the Medical Officer, who had examined P.W.1, P.W.6 was another Doctor who had initially treated P.W.2, P.Ws.7 and 13 were seizure witnesses, P.W.8 was the wife of P.W.2, P.W.11 was the brother of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.12 was the doctor of District Headquarters Hospital at Baripada, who had treated P.W.2 the injured and P.W.14 was the Investigating Officer. 4. The plea of the defence was complete denial. The Appellants chose not to get examine any witness examined. 5. After vivid discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court came to the conclusion that accused Trilochan Mallik and Padmalochan Mallik had shot arrows at P.W.2 intending to cause his death, but then out of two arrows the arrow shot by Padmalochan Mallik did not hit P.W.2. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.10, an independent witness, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the arrow had pierced the chest of P.W.2 inasmuch as the blade of the arrow was not visible while the tail was visible from outside. The arrow was seized and produced in the Court below. Accordingly, it was concluded that the accused persons had committed offence u/s 307 of I.P.C. attempting common object to kill P.W.2 in furtherance of their common object. 6. As regards information of P.W.1 was concerned, after discussing the evidence and on being satisfied that there were variations and discrepancies in the evidence of different P.Ws, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons regarding assault on P.W.2. 6. As regards information of P.W.1 was concerned, after discussing the evidence and on being satisfied that there were variations and discrepancies in the evidence of different P.Ws, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons regarding assault on P.W.2. On the basis of such conclusion all the accused persons were convicted for having committed offence u/s 307/149 of I.P.C. and were sentenced thereunder as stated above. 7. Mr. S.C. Samantray, learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons, took the pain of placing before this Court the evidence of all the witnesses and submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, the informant was full of he embellishments and material discrepancies inasmuch he having tried to add colour to the occurrence, the trial Court acted illegally in relying upon his evidence. According to him the narrations made in the F.I.R. were not substantiated by oral evidence inasmuch as the allegation that P.W.1 was assaulted having not been believed, the trial Court should have also disbelieved the other portion of the prosecution story. Placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.2, who was also injured, it is submitted that the said witness had deposed only against Trilochan and Padamalochan and had not breathed a single word against others. Thus, the trial Court should not have convicted the other three accused persons. He further submitted that presence of P.Ws.3 and 8 at the spot should not have been believed. Last but the not the least, according to him, the prosecution having completely failed to establish any intention to kill P.W.2, the conviction u/s 307 of I.P.C. was improper. 8. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, relying upon the evidence of P.W.2 and other witnesses, submitted that the action of the accused persons clearly indicated that they had intention to kill P.W.2. It is further stated that the trial Court had taken all the facts and circumstances into consideration and rightly appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, and thus the order of conviction and sentence needs no interference. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and also perused the evidence, both oral and documentary. For the purpose of constituting an offence u/s 307, two ingredients are required to be established. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and also perused the evidence, both oral and documentary. For the purpose of constituting an offence u/s 307, two ingredients are required to be established. First, there should be an intention or knowledge to commit murder, and second the act done was to achieve the said purpose. The phrase "under such circumstances" used in Section 307 must be read in conjunction with such intention or knowledge and the same means that the act must have been done in such a way and with such Ingredients that if it succeeded, the result would have been murder as per Sections 299 and 300 of I.P.C. Thus, it is clear that to satisfy the requirement of an offence u/s 307 I.P.C. there should be an intention to murder and the injury was caused with the knowledge that the same would result in death, although the injured by the grace of God may luckily escape death. In order to determine the intention of the assailant, various factors and circumstances are to be considered, such as, the nature of the injury caused, severity of the blow or its persistence, sufficiency of time and opportunity of causing more injuries, intervention by others, the nature of weapon etc. 10. In the case in hand, an offence u/s 307 of I.P.C. can be said to have been made out only if established that the accused shot the arrow at the injured with an intention to of murdering him. However the prosecution could not establish such intention to the fullest satisfaction of the Court by adducing cogent evidence. According to Mr. Samantaray, though evidence was available with regard to conflict between two groups belonging to two different castes, there was no evidence directly revealing that the accused persons had the intention to kill P.W.2 and as such the conviction u/s 307 of I.P.C. was not warranted. Perusal of evidence of P.W.2 also reveals that the accused persons had only intended to assault P.W.2. P.W.2 in his evidence has clearly stated that on the date of incident the accused persons shouted in front of his house and when he came out, accused Trilochan shot an arrow which pierced his abdomen. He also stated that the accused Padmalochan shot another arrow, but that pierced into a wall. This fact was corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses also. He also stated that the accused Padmalochan shot another arrow, but that pierced into a wall. This fact was corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses also. Though motive is a basic ingredient, the prosecution has totally failed to establish such fact. The second arrow alleged to have been shot was neither seized nor is there any evidence as to where it struck. Perusal of the entire evidence reveals that major portion of the assault has been contributed to Trilochan and Padmalochan. The incident in question having occurred in the year 1995, thirteen years have passed in the meanwhile. Though this Court is conscious of the fact that by efflux of time an offence committed cannot lessen its gravity, this Court feels that as an order of conviction was always hanging on the head of the Appellants thereby causing mental tension a liberal view would mitigate the case. 11. After analyzing the evidence and considering all the facts and circumstances and after appreciating the arguments advanced by learned Counsel this Court is satisfied that the prosecution had failed to adduce enough evidence to arrive at a conclusion that an offence u/s 307 of I.P.C. had been committed. Consequently, all the Appellants are convicted for commission of offence u/s 323 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. Further considering the overt acts individually committed by each of the accused and the fact that Trilochan who had shot the arrow had already undergone imprisonment for more than three years, this Court reduces his substantive sentence to the period already undergone, but then enhances the fine to Rs. 3,000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. So far as other accused persons are concerned, considering the role played by them in commission of the offence reduces the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them and enhances the fine to Rs. 3,000/ - each, in default they shall undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. After the fine is realized, the same be paid to the injured, P.W.2. With the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence, the Crl. Appeal is disposed of.