JUDGEMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Janak Singh. Charges under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and under section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practice Act, 1999 were also framed against him. . 2. In Sessions Trial No. 126 of 2007, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. But, the charges under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and under section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practice Act, 1999 have failed. 3. The informant of this case is wife of Janak Singh, the deceased. On the basis of her fardbeyan which was recorded on 16.11.2006 at 10:00 a.m. in her village, Manatu (Tarhasi O.P.) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006 has been lodged against Anlekh Singh and Rohit Singh under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant; the police has filed final form against Rohit Singh. 4. During the trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses; the informant is PW-4. 5. The prosecution has projected the informant and her younger brother-in-law, namely, Mauleshwar Singh as the eye witnesses. 6. In her fardbeyan, the informant has stated that yesterday, that is, on 15.11.2006 she had gone with her husband to harvest the paddy crop and when they were returning home and reached near the house of the appellant, he suddenly came out from his house. His brother Rohit Singh also came there and stood by his side. At that time the appellant was carrying a country-made pistol and the moment she along with her husband reached near his house Rohit Singh exhorted him to kill her husband whereupon he has fired on her husband from his country-made pistol. She rushed to help her husband but he had died instantly. On her raising hulla and hearing sound of gun fire Dhirju Singh and Kunj Bihari Singh who are the co-villagers came there and seeing the villagers assembling there the accused persons fled away. The informant has stated that after harvesting crop she was returning home with her husband. They were bringing paddy on a bullock-cart and she was also carrying a bundle of paddy on her head. The informant has stated that after harvesting crop she was returning home with her husband. They were bringing paddy on a bullock-cart and she was also carrying a bundle of paddy on her head. In the court also she has deposed that at about 6 p.m. in the evening of 15.11.2006 she was returning from the field with her husband after harvesting the paddy crop and when they reached near the house of the appellant on exhortation of his brother the appellant has fired on her husband. She has stated that the shot fired by the appellant has hit her husband on his face and he has died on the spot. She has further stated that on her raising hulla her father-in-law and brother-in-law came there but by that time the accused persons had fled away. The brother-in-law of the informant has been examined as PW-3. He is also an eye-witness. He has stated in the court that on hearing hulla by his sister-in-law he has rushed to the place of occurrence. He has found the accused persons fleeing away towards western side of the village and at that time the appellant was carrying a gun. He has seen the dead body of his brother, who had suffered gunshot injury on his left cheek. 7. PW-1 and PW-2 who are the co-villagers have been declared hostile but they have also stated that Janak Singh has been murdered. 8. The learned Sessions Judge has found testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 reliable and trustworthy. They are the eye witnesses. We find that during their cross-examination, PW-3 and PW-4 have stood by what they have stated before the police. They have reiterated their statement before the police in their examination-in-chief. Their testimony inspires confidence. The place of occurrence is very near to their house. In his cross-examination PW-3 has stated that the place of occurrence is just 20 steps away from his house and at the time of the incident he was at his door. He has further stated that on hearing the sound of gunshot within 2-3 minutes he has reached the place of occurrence. PW-4 has stated in her cross-examination that she was walking along with her husband while they were returning home after harvesting the paddy crop. She has stated that the appellant has fired at her husband from a distance of about 15 feet. 9. Mr. PW-4 has stated in her cross-examination that she was walking along with her husband while they were returning home after harvesting the paddy crop. She has stated that the appellant has fired at her husband from a distance of about 15 feet. 9. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, the learned Amicus has contended that motive for the crime as stated by the informant has not been proved and her admission during the cross-examination that the extremists were visiting her village creates a doubt that her husband has been killed by the extremists. He has further submitted that delay in lodging the First Information Report which has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution further creates a doubt that after deliberations the appellant has been implicated in this case. 10. A glance at the First Information Report would disclose that distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is about 10 k.m. The incident has happened in the evening of 15th November, 2006 and next day morning at about 10 a.m. fardbeyan of the informant has been recorded by the police. The statement of the informant that the extremists were frequenting her village may have been a reason why an information regarding the occurrence was not sent to the police the same evening. The eye witness account of PW-3 and PW-4 is sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. John F. Kenedy-PW-5 who has conducted the post-mortem on 16th November, 2006 has found one ante-mortem lacerated wound, size 1” in diameter, on the left cheek of Janak Singh. He has also found fracture of angle of left mandible i.e. cheek bone, blood inside the oral cavity and three fragments of bullet in the oral cavity. PW-5 has observed that tongue and mouth of the deceased were also lacerated. He has found rigor-mortis present and in his opinion time elapsed since death was 12 to 24 hrs. from the post-mortem examination. 11. On such facts, homicidal death of Janak Singh has been proved by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 that the appellant has fired from his country-made pistol on Janak Singh has also been proved by the prosecution. 12. from the post-mortem examination. 11. On such facts, homicidal death of Janak Singh has been proved by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 that the appellant has fired from his country-made pistol on Janak Singh has also been proved by the prosecution. 12. Because the investigating officer has not been examined during the trial, or that there was animosity between the appellant and the family of the informant for the last twenty years, or that PW-1 and PW-2 who are the co-villagers have not supported the prosecution, all that is required is to examine the prosecution’s evidence with due care and caution. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is cogent and consistent and the aforesaid aspects of the case would not affect foundation of the prosecution’s case on complicity of the appellant in the crime. 13. However, in our opinion, conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not proper. 14. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from fire-arm injury, but it is not opinion of the doctor that injury caused to Janak Singh by fire-arm was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. In the Text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, 26th Edition, it is observed that external haemorrhage may produce marked fall of blood pressure and consequent shock causing death, if a large blood vessel such as the carotid or femoral artery has been wounded. The doctor has not found carotid or femoral artery of Janak Singh ruptured. In case of internal haemorrhage, a small quantity of haemorrhage in the brain or pericardium may prove fatal and blood flowing into the windpipe may also cause death. But, these characteristics have also not been seen by the doctor. Modi observes that death may result from fright due to reflex vagal inhibition of the heart, from pain felt in flogging or concussion of the brain and a person may die of shock without any marks of violence, but then, it is generally recognized as sudden death. 15. According to the informant the incident has happened when she reached near the house of the appellant. At that time he was carrying a country-made pistol and on exhortation of his brother he has fired at her husband. 15. According to the informant the incident has happened when she reached near the house of the appellant. At that time he was carrying a country-made pistol and on exhortation of his brother he has fired at her husband. He has not fired another shot at Janak Singh is an admitted position. The shot fired by the appellant has resulted in fracture of his cheek bone. From manner of the occurrence — the appellant has fired one shot at Janak singh from his country-made pistol — it appears that the incident has taken place on a trivial issue. The informant has also stated that few days before the incident there was a quarrel between her husband and the appellant regarding theft of the paddy crops. 16. In the aforesaid state of evidence, it is difficult to hold that the appellant has fired from his country-made pistol with an intention of causing death or with an intention of causing such bodily injury which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. From the nature of injury caused to Janak Singh, it is also not possible to impute knowledge to the appellant that he knew that his act was so eminently dangerous that it must “in all probability” would cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 17. Having analysed the prosecution’s evidence, particularly, the medical evidence, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, accordingly, his conviction for the said offence is set-aside. 18. Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code defines grievous hurt. It contains eight clauses and clause Seventhly refers to fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. It is proved from the medical evidence that the appellant has caused grievous injury to Janak Singh. He has voluntarily caused grievous hurt by firing from his country-made pistol which was “likely to cause death” and, therefore, is liable to be convicted and punished under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [refer, “Vijay Singh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2014) 12 SCC 293 and “Rama Meru and another Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in 1993 Supp(1) SCC 315]. 19. Accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 14 years under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2014) 12 SCC 293 and “Rama Meru and another Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in 1993 Supp(1) SCC 315]. 19. Accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 14 years under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. In the result, Cr.Appeal (D.B.) No. 480 of 2011 is partly allowed. 21. The court concerned shall prepare a modified conviction warrant against the appellant, namely, Anlekh Singh @ Anlekh Kumar Singh. 22. We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, the learned Amicus. 23. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s). 24. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.