JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal from jail by the accused appellant against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta dated January 12, 1976, where by the accused appellant was sentenced to 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. A sentence of nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25/- was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20/- was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, and sentence of 10 days simple imprisonment was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Wild Animal and Birds Protection Act, 1951. 2. The accused appellant was unable to engage a counsel, Shri B Advani Advocate was appointed to represent him under the Legal Aid Prograqmme. 3. The fact of the case, in brief, are that on December 13, 1974 at about 4.00 p.m. Ramlal lodged a written complaint Ex. P/9 at the Police Station Panchori stating that the accused Gopal had shot a doe in the field of Dhokal Ram. It was further alleged that Dhokal Ram who was going to his field having heard the report of the gun fire went towards that place. Accused Gopal fired a shot towards him, which it on his right leg. Jalu Ram, Narsingh Ram and Ram Chandra arrived there. They caught the accused and brought him to the village along with the dead doe. It is also stated in the report that Dhokal Ram injured was sent to the hospital at Basani. On the basis of this report, a case was registered under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Rajasthan Wild Animal and Birds Protection Act, 1951. After investigation a charge sheet was submitted before the learned Munsiff Magistrate. Nagaur who committed the accused on March 6,1975 to the Court of Sessions for facing his trial under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 8 of the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951. 4. After investigation a charge sheet was submitted before the learned Munsiff Magistrate. Nagaur who committed the accused on March 6,1975 to the Court of Sessions for facing his trial under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 8 of the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951. 4. Arguments for framing charges were heard on behalf of the accused appellant, and he was charged with offence punishable under Section 307 and 326 Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Acts and Section 8 of the Rajasthan Wild Animal and Birds Protection Act, 1951. The plea of the accused was recorded, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution produced 12 witnesses, PW/1 Harendra Singh, who medically examined Dhonkal Ram on December 13, 1974, was examined PW/2 Jalu Ram and PW/5 Narsingh Ram along with the injured Dhonkal Ram PW/9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW/3 Paras Ram Joshi is the person in whose presence X-ray of the right leg of Dhonkal Ram was taken. PW/4 Balu Ram is the person in whose presence the place of occurrence was inspected by the SHO Shri Chhitar Singh. Articles were taken by PW/6 Daulat Khan for chemical examination to the Chemical Examiner at Jaipur. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellant under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, but convicted him to 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned counsel for the accused appellant strenuously argued that on the facts on record an offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is not satisfactorily proved. It was further contended that even if the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is established, then looking to the nature of injury the sentence of 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment is excessive. It was also contended that the accused appellant is not a previous convict, and as such a lenient view ought to have been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. On behalf of the State, it was contended that the offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code has been proved beyond all manner of doubt, and the sentence awarded to the accused appellant cannot be said to be excessive. 9. 8. On behalf of the State, it was contended that the offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code has been proved beyond all manner of doubt, and the sentence awarded to the accused appellant cannot be said to be excessive. 9. The contentions of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 10. In the instant case, the injured PW/9 Dhonkal Ram has stated that on the day of occurrence, at about 2.00 p.m. he had gone to his field and when he reached near the field, he heard the report of gun-fire, in the field of Gokul. He went towards the field of Gokul and saw that a doe has been killed. The doe was killed by Gopal. On hearing his shouts Jalu Ram, Narsingh Ram and Ram Chandra came there. Accused Gopal wanted to lift the dead doe. Dhonkal Ram therefore shouted at him. At this, accused Gopal fired a gun shot towards him which hit him on his leg. He fell down and became unconscious, and regained consciousness in the hospital at Ajmer. The statement of Dhonkal Ram was corroborated by the statements of PW/5 Narsingh Ram and PW/2 Jalu Ram. 11. The accused has examined himself as PW/1, and has stated that the village is pre-dominated & inhabited by the Vishnoies, & that it was on the basis of casteisem that he has been falsely implicated. Having given my most anxious consideration to the facts on record and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home to the accused appellant under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly convicted the accused appellant under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the sentence of 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment is too harsh. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State did not contest reasonable reduction in the quantum of sentence. The accused appellant is not a previous convict, and there is nothing on record which goes to show that he is a person of bad antecedents. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State did not contest reasonable reduction in the quantum of sentence. The accused appellant is not a previous convict, and there is nothing on record which goes to show that he is a person of bad antecedents. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the accused appellant under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is reduced to 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment. The other Sentences in posed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under different sections shall, however, stand confirmed. 12. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of the accused appellant awarded under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is reduced to 11/2 year's rigorous imprisonment instead of 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta. The rest of the appeal with regard to all other sentences imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall stand dismissed. The accused and the jail authorities may be informed accordingly. *******