ORDER Gyanendra Kumar, J. - Ghani Applicant has been convicted Under Sections 307 IPC and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The sentence awarded to him under the former count is three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, while under the latter, he has been given one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were, however, made to run concurrently. Qabool Applicant has been convicted only u/s 323 IPC and sentenced to a term of three months rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences were maintained by the Sessions Judge on appeal; hence this revision. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated was that on 25-9-1962 Smt. Asghari., wife of Abdul Ghani complainant had come out of her house to throw rubbish sweepings. The Applicant, Ghani was also living in the neighbourhood and is related to her as her sister's husband. He is alleged to have passed filthy remarks against her, which were resented by her. When her husband returned home in the evening, she reported the matter to him. The latter went to the house of Ghani Applicant to lodge a protest against his undesirable behaviour meted out to his wife, but the Applicant was not at home. Next day at about 12 noon, when the complainant was coming from the field to his house to take lunch, Ghani and Qabool Applicants happened to meet him. Qabool was armed with a lathi. The complainant questioned Ghani Applicant as to why he had misbehaved with his wife on the previous day. Thereupon Ghani Applicant is said to have retorted that he would continue to do so. The complainant then held out a threat to him that he would take the matter before the Panchayat and shall see that he is excommunicated. Instantly Ghani Applicant pulled out a pistol from his waist. Seeing the fire arm the complainant started running, but Ghani fired a shot at him hitting the former in the right arm and shoulder. Qabool Applicant, who was accompanying Ghani, also struck a few lathi blows on the complainant. On an out-cry raised by the latter, his brother Akbar and other witnesses including Ismail, Majid and Rah mat rushed to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. After some pursuit and scuffle the Applicants were arrested by the villagers. During the scuffle the Applicants received some injuries. On an out-cry raised by the latter, his brother Akbar and other witnesses including Ismail, Majid and Rah mat rushed to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. After some pursuit and scuffle the Applicants were arrested by the villagers. During the scuffle the Applicants received some injuries. A country made pistol along with two live catridges were recovered from the possession of Ghani Applicant. Both the Applicants along with the said pistol and cartridges were handed over at the Police station and a First Information Report was lodged by the complainant at 4 p.m. The complainant was medically examined at 5-30 p.m. and was found to have received six injuries on his body, two of which were gun shot wounds--the first being on the right arm and the second one on the right shoulder. There were also two contused wounds on the left side of the head besides abrasions. 3. On the side of the Applicants, Ghani received twelve simple injuries caused by some blunt weapon, whereas Qabool also received some minor injuries, which were noted in the General Diary. 4. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. Mulla on behalf of the Applicants that no explanation was offered at the initial stage regarding the injuries found on the person of the Applicants and that this serious omission was fatal to the prosecution. 5. In his cross-examination the investigating officer deposed that he had enquired from Akbar and other witnesses as to how the Applicants had received their injuries and that they had told him that the witnesses had reached the spot on hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and that while affecting the arrest of the Applicants the villagers had given them a beating. The perusal of the statements recorded by the investigating officer u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the complainant as well as PWs Ismail, Akbar and Majeed had really said so before him. It is noteworthy that both the Applicants had been arrested on the spot and were paraded to the police station by the prosecution witnesses. It is also in evidence that Ghani Applicant was armed with a country-made pistol, while Qabool had a lathi with him. It is but natural that the Applicants must have put in resistance before being arrested by the villagers, who had gathered at the place of occurrence. It is also in evidence that Ghani Applicant was armed with a country-made pistol, while Qabool had a lathi with him. It is but natural that the Applicants must have put in resistance before being arrested by the villagers, who had gathered at the place of occurrence. The statement of the complainant that the injuries were received by Ghani Applicant by striking his head against the wall would look absurd, but it has to be remembered that Ghani had also filed a case against the complainant and his^ partymen for causing hurt to him. Obviously it was on this account that the complainant had stated before the committing court that no one had given a beating to the accused and that Ghani had sustained his injuries by repeatedly striking his head against the wall--probably suggesting that the injuries were self inflicted. By doing so the complainant went back on his earliest statement made before the investigating officer, obviously in order to save himself from the consequence of having caused injuries to Ghani Applicant. In these circumstances no hyper importance can be given to the statement of the complainant made before the committing court regarding the manner in which Ghani had received his injuries. 6. I have been taken through certain depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the medical report and other material on record. I agree that Ghani Applicant was responsible for having caused gun shot injuries to the complainant, while Qabool Applicant had caused simple hurts to the complainant. Qabool was, therefore, rightly convicted u/s 323 IPC. The offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act has also been fully established against Ghani Applicant. The sentences under these counts are not excessive. However, so far as gunshot injuries caused by him to the complainant are concerned, Mr. Mulla has argued that the offence does not fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC but amounts to an offence u/s 324 IPC. 7. A perusal of Section 307 IPC would reveal that it contemplates an offence of attempted murder where the accused does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by his act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. In the instant case, it has to be remembered that Ghani Applicant had misbehaved with the wife of the complainant in the morning previous to the day of occurrence. In the instant case, it has to be remembered that Ghani Applicant had misbehaved with the wife of the complainant in the morning previous to the day of occurrence. Thereupon the complainant had gone to the house of the Applicant in order to register his protest, but the accused was not available at home. It was in these circumstances that Ghani Applicant had armed himself with a country made pistol and live cartridges to use them against the complainant as and when necessary. On the day of occurrence, when the complainant asked Ghani as to why he had misbehaved with his wife the previous morning, the accused, instead of expressing any regrets, retorted that he would act likewise and forthwith pulled out his pistol from his waist and fired the same at the complainant even though the former had taken to his heels. The pistol was aimed not towards the feet or even thigh of the complainant but was aimed high enough so as to hit him on the back of his right shoulder and right arm. The shot was fired from close range, so much so, that two wads had also entered the body of the complainant along with the pellets. If the angle of the pistol hid been lowered even by a few inches the discharge from the fire arm would have pierced through the lungs and soms of the pellets might have even run across the heart. The aim was obviously at the upper part of the body and not at the lower non-vital parts. Under the circumstances the courts below were not wrong in convicting Ghani Applicant u/s 307 IPC for the knowledge contemplated by the section could be easily attributed to him, when he acted in the manner described above. He has been awarded a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment on this count, which cannot be considered excessive. 8. The revision has no force and is dismissed. The Applicants are on bail. They must immediately surrender to serve out their respective term of the remaining sentences.