the leaned Sessions Judge has convicted and sautencmi the appeHant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality 3. As per case of prosecutton, on fateful day of 5,4 2Q04 at about 9 00 pm, the appellant who was holdmg bow and arrow” j, shot arrow upon the chest of Veersau and caused fatal mJury to hnn as result ofwlnch he d1ed on same day RaJaram (PW-Q) went 4 to Pohce Stahon and lodged FIR v1de Ex P/2 The Vlllage persons t took Veersa1 to D1str1ct hospltal Korba Dunng the come of x Jomney, he dled Dead body was brought to the Hosprtal and Doctor mhmated the death to outpost Rampur, ’Pohce Station: x Korba Pohce of Korba recorded merg Vlde Ex.P/ 10‘ The Invesugatmg 0&cer left for the scene of occumence and after summonmg mmesses, mquest over the dead body of the deceaseda ‘ was prepared Vlde EX P/8 Dead body was sent for autopsy towv; Dismct Hosp1tal Korba, whexe Dr Arun Kumar ’I‘lwan (PW 9f , conducted autopsy VJde Ex P/9 and found followmg Injuries v One an‘ow thxusted m chest whJCh was taken out, as at s, result of such arrow stab wound of 4 5 cm breadth and 12 ; ‘ cm depth was found between the 8th nb. e Puncture was found in the liver Cause of death was as a result of excesstve bleedmg Durmg 1;: the course of mvestlgahon arrow removed hem the body‘ f the” deceased was selzed v1de EX. V P/ 17 Accused was taken Into z custody; he made disclosure statement of bow and arrow mde Ex. P/3 same was recovered at the instance of appellant vide Ex 9/4 ) ‘ Blood stamed and plam so11 was recovered n‘om the spot Vlde Ex > ‘ P/5 and EX P16 along w1th one Gamcha Spot map was prepared by Patwan V1de Ex. P/7. Statements of thewmxesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 '(in short the Code). ' ' V \i i. o w 4V After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistmte Fixst Class Katghora, who in turm comxmtted the case to the Court of Sess1ons, K0112a and the Sesswns Judge Korba conducted tnal on mcelvmg the case on transfer after formauon of new Dlstmct Kor‘ba. The case was transferred to Sessions Division Korba. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, s prosecution examined as many as 13 Witnesses Accused was -' ’ examined under Section 313 of the Code, in which he denied the ~ h e Circumstances appearing against him mnocence and false implication in cnme m questlon was claimed 6. Atter ah‘ording opportunity of hearing to the parties, thew t learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appeilant as v , aforesaid mentioned. 7. We have heard Shri Vivek Shrivastava learned counsel for the appellant and Shn Ravmdra Agrawal learned Panel Lawyer for the State, perused the Judgment impugned and record of the trial Court 8 . Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued thatas - v L per case of prosecution appellant consumed liquor along with the a it deceased and one Lagan and thereaner in a state of mtoxmation, t he shot arrow Without any intention, therefore, if the case of the r ;, prosecution 1s consnlered to be true then also the act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Sech'on 304 Part II of r the IPC. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed these arguments and subrmtted that the appellant was havmg bow and arrow and he shot the armw, which shows his graye intention for causing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Veersai. 10. In onier to appmmate the arguments advanced on behaif of the parties, we have examined the ev1dence adduced on behalf of the prosecuuon. 11. In the pmsent case, homicidal death as a msult ofwfatal injury found over the vital pan of the deceased i.e. {on cheat and x liver by the anow, has not been substantially disputed on behalf ef : a the appellant, on the other hand, it is established by the evidence of Dr. Arun Kumar ’I‘iwari (PW-9) and autopsy report Ex. PIS and death was homicidal in nature. 12. As regards complicity’of the accused/appellant in crime in question 1s concerned conwcnon of the appellant 1s substanually based on the ev1dence of Dhurlnn Bai (PW 3) Wife of the deceased» consumed liquor, thereafter, the deceased told her that the appellant was chasing with bow and arrow for: kllhnghim, on r which she also chased then the appellant pushed her As per her ev1dence, appenant, her husband Le, Veer-salami Lagan The; appellant shot arrow upon the chest of Veersal and caused him - fatal mjury. Her husband also narrated the mordent to Amareingh x and Rajaram and thereafter he died. 13. Defence has cross examined this Witness at length, shut base-n not been able to illicit anything‘in her cross examination to dxscredxt her testimony Her ewdence 1s well corroborated by the promptly lodged FIR Ex P/ 2 and med1ca1 ewdence. As per eVIdence of Dhurbm Ba1 (PW-3) Wife of the deceased, aypellant chased the ~ deceased; he was holding bow and arrow and thereafter he shot the arrow upon the deceased and caused him fatal injury resulting mto his death These facts are suEclent for drawmg an mference that the appellant has caused homicidal death of the deceased IF H H, r .1 Tye » 14. As mgaxds mouve 1s concerned mauve only alds m cmmnahty, 1n case of dnect ewdence 1t losses 1ts Importanc 'Motlve can be mfcrxed on the basxs of weapon used part of th body e§ected nature of Imuly and other smnlar cn‘cumsfances In the present case, appellant had consumed hquor, but after consuming liquor, he was; holding bow; he chased the deceased and after chasing him shot arrow upon his chestand thereby caused his death. This shows his gave intention of-causing culpable homicide amounting to munder of Veersai. ‘Aiter apprecxatmg the ev1dence, avmlable on record learned Sessmns Judge has conxucted and. sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned 15. On close scrutiny of the ev1dence we do not hnd any illegality or mFmmty 1n the conv1ction mid sentence of the appellant Imposed by the Court below Consequently, the appeal bemg devoxd of merits 1s hable to be dismlssed and 1t 1s hereby dismissed Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge e e w ~ s: