The court emphasized the importance of eliciting details from medical witnesses about the nature and gravity of injuries, as this information is crucial in determining the mens rea of the accused in cases of homicide.

Bhat, C. J.:- This is a jail appeal filed by the accused in sessions case No. 94(N)/ 86 on the file of the Sessions Court, Nalbari, who has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay of fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Prosecution case is that at about 8.00 a.m. on 29-6-1985 appellant armed with a bow and arrow chased Lakhi Mardi, wife of P.W. 1 and when she reached the paddy field of P.W. 2, he shot an arrow which struck her in the back region of her head and she fell down injured. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 2 who was working in the field and P.W. 3, the 8 year son of Lakhi Mardi who was coming behind his mother. P.W. 2 ran away out of fear. P.W.3 ran away and informed his father, P.W. 1, about the occurrence. P.W. 1 came to the scene and with the help of others took his wife to his house where she died. He went to Kumarikata Police Out Post and gave Ext. 1 information to the S. I. of Police in charge, P.W. 4. P.W. 1 sent Ext. 1 to Tamulpur P. S. having jurisdiction over the area, for registration of the case. He was directed to conduct investigation. He proceeded to the village, held inquest over the body of deceased and prepared inquest report, Ext. 3. He arrested the appellant the next day and questioned him. He went to the scene and noticed bloodstains and seized Ext. 1 arrow head lying there. Post-mortem was conducted by P.W. 5, Medical Officer. After completing investigation, P.W.4 laid the final report against the appellant under Section 173, Cr. P. C.

3. Appellant pleaded not guilty before the Sessions Court. Prosecution examined five witnesses and marked the relevant documents and material exhibits. Appellant, when questioned by the trial Court, merely denied the truth of the prosecution evidence. The trial Court held that the charge against the appellant under Section 302, IPC has been established beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

4. Since the appellant had no Counsel, Smt. A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate was appointed State Brief to argue on his behalf. Learned counsel has contended that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the prosecution case, that all the injuries found on the dead body have not been explained by the prosecution, that the injuries could not have been caused by an arrow, that the evidence of P.W. 2 is unworthy of belief in view of the major contradiction with his earlier version to the Police. We have been taken through the documents and evidence in the case.

5. Post-mortem certificate and the evidence of the doctor will show that there were as many as 10 injuries on the dead body. Of them, injuries 1, 3 and 4 are bone deep injuries on the left ring finger, left middle finger and left forearm. Injury 2 is a fracture of the phalanxial bone below injury No. 1. Injury 5 is fracture of the ulna below the injury No. 4. Injury No. 6 is a minor abrasion on the left deltoid region. Injury No. 7 is a lacerated wound on the occipital region of the scalp, 2.5 cm. x .1 cm. x bone deep. More serious injuries are injuries 8 to 10, which are described as follows:

"8. Lacerated wound on the left parietal region of the scalp 1.5 cm, above the left ear, 3.5 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep.

9. Fracture of the left parietal bone below injury No. 8.

10. Subdural haematoma over the left parietal region of the brain. Ante-mortem blood clot seen adherent to the wounds described above."

P.W. 5 deposed that death was on account of head injuries along with other injuries sustained leading to shock, haemorrhage and coma. The opinion expressed as such cannot be accepted since we do not think the injuries, namely, injuries 1, 3, 4 and 6 could have made contributed to either shock, haemorrhage or coma; but there can be no doubt that these injuries were sustained in the course of the occurrence. Death must have been caused by injuries 8 and 9 together with the intenal injury No, 10.