Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 130 OF 1996 Against the judgment and order dated 19.06.1996 passed by Sri Kamla Prasad, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in S.Tr. No. 81 of 1988. ************ Rajendra Tatma, S/o Dukhi Tatama, Resident of Village-Bishanpur, Police Station-Banmankhi, District-Purnea. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in S.Tr. No. 81 of 1988 by a judgment dated 19.06.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.1984 when the informant and others were harvesting the paddy of the field which allegedly lay in their share for which a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated since last 10-11 months, the accused persons variously armed came there and assaulted the prosecution party. The specific allegation against the appellant is that he had given an arrow blow on the stomach of Biranchi Sah on account of which he fell down and later died. The accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and other 2 allied Sections but rest of the accused persons were acquitted of the charges on the ground that since there was ample evidence that it was the accused persons who had grown the paddy and the prosecution party was the aggressor no unlawful assembly was made out. The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-I as mentioned above. 3. During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are the witnesses of the occurrence and P.W. 4 is a formal witness. The Investigating Officer and the Doctor were examined as Court Witnesses. 4. On going through the evidence of the Doctor, I find that he had observed all the injuries on the person of the deceased and the arrow had also been removed from his person by the Doctor. From the evidence on record, it is evident that some of the prosecution witnesses have conceded that Kailu Tatma was recorded as a bataidar and in fact the paddy was being harvested by the prosecution despite it not having been sown by them. 5. On going through the evidence of the prosecution there is no manner of doubt that the appellant had in fact shot an arrow at the deceased on account of which he sustained injuries and died. However, in the facts of the case, in my opinion, it does 3 not appear that the Appellant had knowledge that his shooting the arrow would cause the death of the deceased and therefore the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-I is converted to one under Section 326 IPC and the sentence is modified to the one that had already undergone by him during trial. 5. With the aforesaid modifications in conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 28th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-