JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : This jail criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in Sessions Trial No.12/60 of 2001 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2.Prosecution case in brief is that on 29.07.2000 at about 9 A.M. the deceased had been to the shed of one Biswanath Bindhani (P.W.5) of village-Arpata for work. At about 5 P.M. the informant (P.W.14) got information from Biswanath that the deceased lying in a serious condition inside Daundia reserve forest. He along with Biswanath immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying senseless on the ground with piercing injury on his right side leg above the knee joint and his cycle was kept by his side. The informant with the help of others first took the deceased to the house of Biswanth and while making arrangement to shift him to his (informant’s) house in a trolley, the deceased died. Suspecting foul play the informant reported the matter at Barsahi Police Station consequent upon which a case was registered and investigation taken up. During the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, examined the witnesses and recorded their statement, seized the cycle, a pair of chappel along with blood-stained earth and sample earth from the spot in presence of the witnesses. On getting information from confidential source, the I.O. interrogated one Sadhu Bindhani, Padmolochan Bindhani and Pabana Bindhani and came to learn that one Padmini Bindhani (P.W.11) is the eye witness to the occurrence. When she was examined by the I.O., in her statement she disclosed to have seen the accused-appellant shooting the deceased by means of bow and arrow inside the forest. On the strength of her statement, the accused-appellant was arrested and while in custody he made disclose statement admitting to have shot the deceased and concealing the arrow in a branch of a tree and gave recovery of the arrow to the police in presence of the witnesses. The I.O. also recovered the bow and thread of the bow from the house of the accused-appellant. On completion of investigation the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the accused-appellant and Saiba Bindhani (since acquitted) for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC. The I.O. also recovered the bow and thread of the bow from the house of the accused-appellant. On completion of investigation the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the accused-appellant and Saiba Bindhani (since acquitted) for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC. 3.Upon receipt of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where the present appellant and the acquitted accused Saiba Bindhani faced trial. During trial they took the plea of complete denial and false implication. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, examined as many as 24 witnesses including the I.O. and the doctor and exhibited 16 documents in evidence. But the accused persons did not choose to adduce either any oral or documentary evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on assessment of the evidence on record convicted the accused-appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life inter alia basing upon the eyewitness account of P.W.11 and the evidence with regard to leading to discovery of the weapon of offence. He, however, acquitted co-accused Saiba Bindhani of the charge. 4.Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds : (i)There are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. (ii)Prosecution has not proved the intention or motive of the accused-appellant. (iii)P.W.11, who is the only eyewitness to the occurrence, disclosed the fact 7 to 8 days after the occurrence. Therefore, her evidence is not believable. (iv)Leading to discovery has not been proved by the prosecution for which the conviction of the appellant is bad in law. 5.Mr. Sk. Zafuralla, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently contends that the contradictions, if any in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are minor. Evidence of P.W.11, who is a witness to the occurrence, is clear, cogent and trustworthy. Immediately after the occurrence she disclosed about it before P.W.5 and P.W.12, the uncle of the deceased. According to her, she saw from a close distance the appellant shooting the deceased by an arrow. The accused while in custody made disclosure statement before the I.O. in presence of P.Ws.15 and 16 and also led them to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the weapon offence (arrow), which was seized by the I.O. under Ext.5 in presence of P.Ws.15 and 16. The accused while in custody made disclosure statement before the I.O. in presence of P.Ws.15 and 16 and also led them to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the weapon offence (arrow), which was seized by the I.O. under Ext.5 in presence of P.Ws.15 and 16. The medical evidence also supports the evidence of the ocular witness (P.W.11) inasmuch as P.W.21, the doctor, on examination of the deceased found one stab injury on his right knee. Therefore, there is no material to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada. 6.Perused the L.C.R. and gone through the evidence of the witnesses minutely. P.Ws.1 and 2, the co-villagers, are the witness to the seizure of a cycle, a pair of ‘chapal’, sample earth and blood stained earth. P.W.3 is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W.4 is a co-villager who simply stated that hearing ‘hullah’ he went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying with bleeding injury on his leg and moaning out of severe pain. Some persons enquired about the incident from the deceased but he could not hear what he replied. His evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution. P.W.5 is the employer of the deceased. He stated that on being heard from his daughter-in-law (P.W.6) about the death of the deceased he immediately rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying with bleeding injury near his right knee. The deceased disclosed before him that someone shot at him by an arrow, but he could not mark him. He went to the house of the informant (P.W.14), the brother-in-law of the deceased, and informed him about the incident. He and P.W.14 returned to the spot and brought the deceased to his (P.W.5’s) house. In cross-examination he admitted that he went to the spot directly from his house after he was informed by P.W.6. Nobody was present at the spot when he arrived there. It was already sunset. He also admitted that he had not disclosed about the incident to anybody except the informant. The deceased was able to talk till he came to his house and left for the house of the informant in a trolley. No villagers had come to see the deceased till he was sent to the house of the informant. He also admitted that he had not disclosed about the incident to anybody except the informant. The deceased was able to talk till he came to his house and left for the house of the informant in a trolley. No villagers had come to see the deceased till he was sent to the house of the informant. P.W.6 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.5. She in her examination-in-chief stated that on the day of occurrence she along with her father-in-law and others left their house for agricultural field while the deceased was working in the ‘Kamara Sala’. She returned at 3 P.M. and served ‘Handia’ to the deceased. She again went to the field and at 4 P.M. all of them returned home and found the deceased absent. Somebody informed her that the deceased was lying somewhere inside the forest. She informed P.W.5, who proceeded to the spot. The deceased was brought to her house. She saw bleeding injury near his right side knee. The brother-in-law of the deceased took him to his house. In cross-examination she admitted that she could not say the name of the person who informed her that the deceased lying in the forest. She had not disclosed the fact to anybody except P.W.5. P.Ws.7, 8, 9 and 10 are the witnesses to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W.11 is a co-villager of both the accused and the deceased. In her examination-in-chief she stated that on the date of occurrence she went to the agriculture field to attend cultivation work. She returned home at about 3 P.M. and after taking lunch she again went to the forest area to collect leaves. She saw the accused moving with bow and arrow inside the forest. After sometime she saw the accused shooting the deceased by an arrow while the deceased was going towards his village. The arrow hit on his right leg above the knee and stuck to it. The deceased fell down on the ground and tried to remove the arrow. The accused left the place. The deceased removed the arrow and left the place leaving the same on the ground. Accused came to the spot, collected the arrow and left the place. She returned home but out of fear did not disclose the fact to anybody in the village. The accused left the place. The deceased removed the arrow and left the place leaving the same on the ground. Accused came to the spot, collected the arrow and left the place. She returned home but out of fear did not disclose the fact to anybody in the village. Only after 2 to 3 days of the occurrence she disclosed the incident to her uncle (P.W.12). In cross-examination she admitted that the deceased was not her relative nor had she any close acquaintance with him. She also admitted that she had not talked to the accused when she saw him moving inside the forest. The accused stood at a distance of about 100 years from the place where she was collecting leaves. She further admitted that she had not disclosed the incident to anybody in the village and even to her aunt and neighbours who were available in the village at that time. A suggestion was given by the defence that she had not seen the accused but she denied the same. P.W.12 is the uncle of P.W.11. In examination-in-chief he stated that his niece (P.W.11) disclosed before him that while she was collecting leaves in the forest saw the accused shot a person. In Cross-examination he admitted that he returned to the village about 8 days after the occurrence. On the following day he went to the police station and informed the Officer in-charge about the facts that he had heard from his niece. Villagers were unaware of the incident till then. P.W.13 is a co-villager who was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution at length. But, he did not support the prosecution case. P.W.14 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and informant of this case. In examination-in-chief he stated that the deceased was working in the ‘Kamara Sala’ of P.W.5. On the concerned day at about 5 P.M. P.W.5 came and informed him that the deceased was lying in the forest with injuries. He went there and found the deceased lying on the ground inside the forest with piercing injury on his right side leg above the knee joint. He brought him to the shed of P.W.5 and thereafter brought him to his house in a trolley. While he was making arrangement to shift him to hospital he died. Thereafter, he went to the police station and got the report drafted by one person known as Moharana. He brought him to the shed of P.W.5 and thereafter brought him to his house in a trolley. While he was making arrangement to shift him to hospital he died. Thereafter, he went to the police station and got the report drafted by one person known as Moharana. After finding the correctness of the report he put his L.T.I. on it and presented the same to the police. P.Ws.15 and 16, who are the co-villagers of the accused, did not support the prosecution case with regard to leading to discovery. P.Ws.17, 18 and 19 did not support the prosecution case. P.W.20 is a seizure witness. He stated that police called him and obtained his signature on a blank form. He did not know anything about the case nor about the seize of anything. However, he proved his signature marked Ext.8. P.W.22 is a witness to the seizure of a bow and proved the seize list Ext.8/1 and his signature Ext.8/2. P.W.21 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found a spindle shaped stab, i.e., penetrating injury of size 3 cm x 1 cm x 7.5 cm just behind the right knee piercing the major popiteal artery and vain. On dissection he found all the internal organs like brain, heart, lungs, livers, spleen, kidneys and intestines were intact but pale. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to profues bleeding from the above wound, leading to shock and death. The death was caused within 24 hours of his post-mortem examination. He also replied in positive to the query of the I.O. whether the injury sustained by the deceased could be caused by shooting of arrow. He also proved his opinion report as Ext.10 and signature as Ext.10/1. P.W.23 is the A.S.I. of police of Bhimda Beat House who received the FIR and sent the same to the O.I.C. Barasahi Police Station. P.W.24 is the O.I.C. of Barasahi Police station and I.O. of this case. He registered the case and took up investigation. During investigation he visited the spot, examined witnesses, recorded their statements, prepared the spot map, seized a cycle, a pair of ‘chapal’, blood stained earth and sample earth from the sot in presence of witnesses and prepared seizure list. He also seized wearing apparels of the deceased. He registered the case and took up investigation. During investigation he visited the spot, examined witnesses, recorded their statements, prepared the spot map, seized a cycle, a pair of ‘chapal’, blood stained earth and sample earth from the sot in presence of witnesses and prepared seizure list. He also seized wearing apparels of the deceased. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same to Udala hospital for postmortem examination. He searched the house of the accused and recovered a bow and thread of the bow in presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list Ext.8. He arrested the accused-appellant on 02.08.2000. He further deposed that the accused-appellant while in custody made disclosure statement and gave recovery of a narrow from the place of concealment, i.e., a Sal tree and he seized the same in presence of the witnesses under Ext.5. On completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet. 7.On screening the evidence of witnesses this Court finds that P.W.11 is a co-villager who had seen the occurrence from a short distance. Her evidence is on the date of occurrence she had been to the forest for collecting leaves. She saw the accused moving with a bow and arrow inside the forest. After sometime, while she was collecting leaves, she saw the accused shooting the deceased by an arrow while the deceased was going towards his village. The arrow hit on the right leg of the deceased above the knee and stuck to it. The deceased fell down on the ground, removed the arrow and left the place leave the same on the ground. Subsequently, the accused came to the spot, collected the arrow and left the place. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to demolish her evidence. She also stated that after returning home out of fear she did not immediately disclose the incident to anybody, but, however, only 2 to 3 days after the occurrence she disclosed the incident to her uncle (P.W.12). This part of her evidence is corroborated by her uncle (P.W.12). The medical evidence supported the ocular testimony of P.W.11. The bow and its thread were recovered from the house of the accused under Ext.8. This part of her evidence is corroborated by her uncle (P.W.12). The medical evidence supported the ocular testimony of P.W.11. The bow and its thread were recovered from the house of the accused under Ext.8. The accused while in custody made disclosure statement, led the police and the witnesses to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., the arrow, which was seized by P.W.24 under Ext.5. The contradictions appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are minor in nature and bound to occur in case of truthful witnesses due to efflux of time. Since there is clear, cogent and clinching evidence against the accused, failure on the part of the prosecution to establish any motive to commit the crime is of no consequence. The ocular evidence of P.W.11 having been found to be clear, cogent, unimpeachable and fully corroborated by the medical evidence, the same cannot be discarded on a flimsy ground like delayed disclosure of the occurrence, especially when P.W.11 in her evidence stated that out of fear she could not immediately disclose the incident to anybody. Since the evidence of investigating officer, who recovered the weapon of offence (M.O.I.), is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses (P.Ws.15 and 16) do not support the prosecution version. Thus, there is no dispute that the present appellant is the author of crime. 8.Now, it is to be seen whether the act of the appellant whereby death of the deceased was caused is punishable under Section 302, IPC or Section 304 Part-I or Part-II, IPC. In the instant case, prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove intention of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. As per prosecution version the arrow was struck on the right leg of the deceased just above the knee, which is not a vital part of the body. The injury was not grievous one and the cause of death was due to profuse bleeding. So, it cannot be inferred that the appellant had done the act with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death of the deceased. The injury was not grievous one and the cause of death was due to profuse bleeding. So, it cannot be inferred that the appellant had done the act with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, having regard to the attending circumstances conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part-II, IPC in light of ratio decided in Bamadev Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 63 (1987) CLT 302. 9.In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment dated 28.07.2003 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.12/60 of 2001 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life is set aside and instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-II, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than eleven years. If that be so, the appellant (Manu Bindhani) be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required otherwise. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.I agree. Appeal allowed in part.