JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. - By the impugned judgment and order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in Sessions Case No.272 of 2001, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for commission of murder of Raghunath Girilia and under Section 307 of the I.P.C. for attempting to cause murder of Ganapati Girilia (P.W 1). Appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 of the I.P.C. 2. Deceased was appellant's co-villager. P.Ws.1 and 6 are deceased's sons. P.W.3 is deceased's nephew. P.W.9 is P.W.1's wife. Occurrence took place on 5.6.2001 at about 7.30 A.M. 3. Prosecution case is that deceased had mortgaged a piece of land with late Dhana Khora ten years prior to the occurrence. Appellant is Dhana Khora's son-in-law. After death of Dhana Khora his son and appellant were in possession of the mortgaged land. As his land was enjoyed on mortgage for long ten years, deceased asked the appellant for redemption. However, appellant refused. Nonetheless, on the day preceding to the date of occurrence in the evening deceased ploughed the land. On the date of occurrence in the morning appellant was sowing paddy in that land. At about 7.30 A.M. deceased came there and protested upon which there was hot exchange of words between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant threatened to kill the deceased, went to his house, brought bow and arrows and shot an arrow aiming at the deceased. The arrow hit deceased's chest causing bleeding injury. When P.W.1 went near the deceased, appellant shot, another arrow at his chest causing bleeding injury. Thereafter appellant fled away. Deceased asked P.W.2 to pull out the arrow from his chest. When he expressed his inability, deceased went towards his house but fell down on the way and took out the arrow from his chest. Thereafter he died. On the basis of oral narration of the occurrence by informant P.W.2 at Boipariguda Police Station, the Officer-in-Charge P.W.12 prepared First Information Report, registered the case and took up investigation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. 4. Appellant took the plea of complete denial. 5. In order to substantite the charge, prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. 4. Appellant took the plea of complete denial. 5. In order to substantite the charge, prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. P.W.1 and informant P.W.2 were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, P.W.2 was declared hostile. P. Ws. 3, 6 and 9 were post-occurrence witnesses. Of them, P.W.6 stated also to have witnessed certain seizure and regarding dying declaration made by the deceased. P.Ws.4 and 5 were seizure and inquest witnesses. P.W.8, a police constable and P.W.10, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, assisted in investigation. P.W.11 is a doctor who medically examined the injured P.W.1 and conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.13, another Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that appellant surrendered and produced arrow and bow in the police station. P. WS.12 and 14 were the Investigating Officers. Prosecution also relied upon documents marked Exts. 1 to 22 and material objects M.Os.1 to IV. No defence evidence was adduced. Placing reliance on the evidence of injured eye witness P.W.1 coupled with evidence of post-occurrence witnesses and medical evidence, trial Court held the prosecution to have proved the charge against the appellant. 6. In assailing the impugned judgment it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant should not have been convicted on the basis of testimony of sole eyewitnessP.W.1 who happens to be son of the deceased. It is further contended that the circumstances proved in the case reveal that in committing the alleged offences the appellant was actuated by grave and sudden provocation as the deceased forcibly tried to cultivate land which was under possession of the appellant. There was no premeditation or preparation for commission of the offences. While appreciating the case the fact that the appellant is tribal and tribal people are of volatile nature, is also to be kept in mind. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside. 7. In reply, If'-learned counsel for the State submitted that there is absolutely no infirmity in the evidence of injured eyewitness P.W, 1 and his evidence is corroborated by medical evidence, of post occurrence witnesses and other incrimination circumstances. 8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. P.W. 11 was working as Medical Officer In-charge of Boipariguda P.H,C. during the period of occurrence. 8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. P.W. 11 was working as Medical Officer In-charge of Boipariguda P.H,C. during the period of occurrence. He deposed to have medically examined P.W,1 and found one penetrating sharp cutting injury between chest and abdomen in the middle portion which might have been caused by pointing cutting weapon like arrow. P.W.1 was admitted as an injured patient and as his condition was serious, he was referred to S.D. Hospital, Jeypore on the very same day. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.1 that he was subsequently referred to District Headquarters Hospital, Koraput. Prosecution has placed on record bed-head ticket Ext.7/2 from which it is evident that P.W.1 was admitted into District Head Quarters Hospital, Koraput on 5.6.2001 and was discharged on 15.6.2001. P.W.11 further deposed to have conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He found one penetrating stab injury at the centre of chest and abdomen with corresponding internal injuries of the liver and other organs. He opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to severe haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries to liver, pylorus and other vessels of-the abdominal cavity. On -production of seized arrow P. W.11 further opined that injuries on the deceased and P. W.1 were possible by sharp edged weapon like arrow. Evidence of P.W.11 has not been discredited in any manner in course of cross-examination. In such circumstances prosecution has adduced unimpeachable evidence to establish that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the injured P.W.1 sustained penetrating wound due to arrow shot. 9. P. W.1 deposed that on the day preceding to the Date of, occurrence he along with deceased and P.W.6 had ploughed their land which had been mortgaged by the deceased with Dhana Khora. Appellant is Dhana Khora's son-in-law. Prior to the occurrence deceased told that he would cultivate the mortgaged land as it belonged to him. At the time of occurrence deceased was going to attend call of nature. Appellant and others were ploughing the case land and sowing paddy. Deceased went there and protested. He also went to the case land. Appellant went to his house and came with a bow and arrow and gave a shot as a result of which the arrow pierced into the belly of the deceased and there was bleeding from the belly. Appellant and others were ploughing the case land and sowing paddy. Deceased went there and protested. He also went to the case land. Appellant went to his house and came with a bow and arrow and gave a shot as a result of which the arrow pierced into the belly of the deceased and there was bleeding from the belly. Deceased raised hullah "MORI GOLI MORI GOLI". When P. W.1 was going to catch hold of the deceased appellant shot another arrow to his chest causing bleeding injury. Then the appellant fled away towards jungle. He also raised hullah "MORI GOLLI MORI GOLLI". Deceased went to the house of P.W.2 which situates near the case land. P. W.1 went to his house and lost his sense. He was taken to Koraput District Headquarters Hospital for treatment. By the time he regained his sense in hospital, deceased was already dead. Evidence of P.W.1 has not been discredited in any manner in course of cross-examination. His evidence also finds supports from the medical evidence. 10. Though in the First Information/Report P.W.2 portrayed himself as an eyewitness, he denied to have seen the occurrence while deposing in Court. He deposed that on the day preceding the date of occurrence deceased ploughed the case land and sowed paddy. On the date of occurrence appellant ploughed land and sowed paddy. At that time deceased came to the case land and protested. Appellant went to his house. Then P.W.2 also went to his house. After sometime, deceased came to P.W.2's house which situates near the case land with an arrow pierced into his belly and there was profuse bleeding. Deceased told him to pull out the arrow from his belly, but he denied. Then the deceased fell down in front of his house. P.W.2 called P.W.6 who came and took the deceased to his house. P. W.2 informed regarding the occurrence to P. W.3 and called him to go to the police station. Thereafter, they went to the police station and orally lodged report about the occurrence. P. W.2 having not stated to have seen the occurrence was declared to be a hostile witness. However, his account of events soon before and after the occurrence remained unassailed. P.W.3 simply deposed to have accompanied P.W.2 to the police station after hearing from him that appellant assaulted the deceased by arrow shot. P. W.2 having not stated to have seen the occurrence was declared to be a hostile witness. However, his account of events soon before and after the occurrence remained unassailed. P.W.3 simply deposed to have accompanied P.W.2 to the police station after hearing from him that appellant assaulted the deceased by arrow shot. P.W.6 also deposed that on the day preceding to the date of occurrence they had ploughed the case land. On the date of occurrence deceased went to the case land followed by P.W.1. P.W.1 returned with an arrow pierced into his chest and there was bleeding. He told P.W.6 to pull out the arrow and he pulled out the arrow from his chest. P.W.6 deposed that P.W.1 told him that appellant gave arrow shot to him as well as deceased as a result of which one arrow pierced into the belly of the deceased and another arrow pierced into his chest. Thereafter, P.W.6 and others went to the house of P.W.2 where deceased was holding an arrow which was broken into two pieces and there was bleeding from his chest. They brought the deceased to their house. Deceased told him that appellant gave arrow shot as a result of which an arrow pierced into his chest. One hour thereafter deceased died. P. W.6 further deposed that villagers took P. W.1 to Hospital for treatment and that he handed over the broken pieces of arrow M.Os. II and III and the arrow M.O.I. which was pulled out from the chest of P.W.I to the police. Evidence of P.W.6 has not been assailed in any manner. P.W.9, who happens to be P.W.1's wife, testified that on the date of Occurrence P.W.1 returned home and told that appellant gave an arrow shot to his, chest. She saw the arrow pierced into the chest of P. W.1. P. W.1 told her to pullout the arrow from his chest but she pleaded her inability. P.W.6 pulled out the arrow. P. W.1 also told her that appellant killed the deceased. She saw the deceased who was in an unconscious state due to piercing of an arrow. Thereafter, deceased died. P.W.4 deposed, regarding seizure of lungi and waist thread by police in his presence. P.W.5 deposed that inquest over the dead body of the deceased was held in his presence. P. W.1 also told her that appellant killed the deceased. She saw the deceased who was in an unconscious state due to piercing of an arrow. Thereafter, deceased died. P.W.4 deposed, regarding seizure of lungi and waist thread by police in his presence. P.W.5 deposed that inquest over the dead body of the deceased was held in his presence. P.W.8 accompanied dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination to the hospital and also brought back the deceased's wearing apparels and handed Over to P.W.12. P.W.10 deposed to have seized bed-head ticket under seizure list Ext.? from District Headquarters Hospital, Koraput. P.W.13 deposed that on 5.6.2001 the appellant came to the police station holding a bow M.O.IV and arrow M.O.I and confessed his guilt which he seized under seizure list Ext.8 He detained the appellant and handed over to P.W.12 when he arrived at the police station. Chemical examination report Ext.20 reveals that one of the seized arrows contained deep smears of the human blood of B group and one of it contained deep smears of human blood of B group. Deceased's lungi was also found to have extensive stain of human blood of B group. 11. On analysis of the evidence of the material witnesses, it is found that evidence of injured eyewitness P.W.1 suffers from no infirmity. His evidence is corroborated by evidence of post-occurrence witnesses as well as evidence of P. W.6 with regard to dying declaration made by the deceased. Medical evidence also corroborates evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, we find no cogent reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court that it was the appellant who shot arrow at the deceased as a result of which deceased sustained fatal injury and died. It is also established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant attempted to kill P.W.1 by shooting an arrow as a result of which he sustained serious injury for which he had to undergo treatment for a prolonged period in the hospital as an indoor patient. 12. However, so far as the allegation of commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is concerned, it is evident that deceased tried to forcibly occupy the land which had been mortgaged and was in possession of the appellant by ploughing and sowing paddy. When the appellant was sowing paddy on the date of occurrence, deceased went there and protested. When the appellant was sowing paddy on the date of occurrence, deceased went there and protested. Appellant who is a tribal procured bow and arrows from his house situated nearby. Admittedly, tribal people are of volatile nature. Conduct of the deceased in ploughing the land under possession of the appellant and protesting when appellant was ploughing land was certainly provocative. On the spur of the moment, without any premeditation, and deprival of the power of self control the appellant brought a bow' and. arrow and shot a single arrow at the deceased. In such circumstance, in shooting the arrow at the deceased the appellant had certainly the intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. However, considering the attending circumstances of the occurrence which took place on the spur of the moment without premeditation or prior preparation while deprived of power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, we are of the considered judgment that the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304, Part-I of the I.P.C. instead of under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 13. So far as offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is concerned, we find no cogent reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. 14. We, accordingly, allow the appeal in part. The impugned judgment and order so far it relates to convicting the appellant and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is concerned is confirmed. Conviction of appellant and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted for commission of offence under Section 304, Part-I of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Appeal allowed in part.