IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 202 0f 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria, in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1992/T.R. No. 374 of 1993.) ------------ Sri ASHOK YADAV, SON OF SADANAND YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANAUHALI, P.S. NARPATGANJ, DISTT. ARARIA. ------- APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Bidhanesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Tanuja Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. C. Jawahar, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years by a Judgment dated 19.7.1997 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria, in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1992/Trial No. 374 of 1993. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant Madho Prasad Yadav (PW-5) is that on 15.1.1992 at about 4.30 in the evening while the Informant was grazing his buffalo on the road, the accused person came there and asked the Appellant why he is grazing the buffalo on their land. When the Informant attempted to give an explanation for the same, the appellant is said to have shot an arrow at him which hit on the left eye on account of which he fell down having become restless. 2 3. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are alleged eye witnesses also mentioned in the First Information Report whereas PW-4 is another eye witness but not named in the First Information Report. PW-5 is the Informant who was injured himself whereas PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are the Doctors who had found the Informant injured. The Investigating Officer has been examined as PW-9. 4. On going through the evidence of the three Doctors, I find that on the person of the Informant, they have found an arrow penetrating on the right eye brow, upper eye and eye ball resulting in loss of total vision of right eye. Evidently, the said injury was grievous in nature. 5. From the evidence of five eye witnesses, there is no manner of doubt that indeed the Appellant had come to the occurrence armed with bow and arrow and after the altercation, had suddenly shot at the Informant which hit him on the eye causing total vision in the right eye. However, on an evaluation of the manner of occurrence, I am not inclined to accept the prosecution version that the injury was intended to cause the death of the injured (PW-5) and at best it would be a case under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed but the conviction of the Appellant is also one under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him during trial. However, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid by the Appellant if alive, to the Informant/his 3 family within four months of receipt of notice from the Trial Court failing which rigorous imprisonment for three months. 7. The Appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modifications. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 4th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.