JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 31, 1975 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of the payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. 2. The prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that Ramphool appellant was an out-law required by the police in a case registered against him under Section 307/34 I.P.C. On December 18, 1973 the police party consisting of PW 5 Babu Singh, PW 6 Abdul Shakbor, PW 9 Guman Singh, PW 11 Nizamuddinand PW 12 Abdul Mannan was patrolling on the upper edge of the Nala near the mines of village Lava. They noticed that accused-appellant Ramphool, who was shown an absconder in case No. 20 registered under Section 307/34 I. P. C., was loitering on she lower edge of the Nala. The police party chased him and when they came nearer to Ramphool, he with an intention to kill the members of the raiding party, fired two shots at them and then the police fired in self defence, but Ramphool could make good his escape and went inside the dense forest. A frantic search was made for the accused. During the course of the search a mufler art. 1 belonging to the accused was seized by the police. Later on the accused-appellant was apprehended. A first information report of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Mandrail, Camp Bankari on December 19, 1973. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused under Section 307 I. P. C. in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli. After commitment the accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of their case, out of whom five witnesses were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. 3. The accused denied his complicity in the crime in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., but did not examine any witness in his defence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statements of PW 5 Babu Singh, PW 6 Abdul Shakoor, PW 9 Guman Singh. 3. The accused denied his complicity in the crime in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., but did not examine any witness in his defence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statements of PW 5 Babu Singh, PW 6 Abdul Shakoor, PW 9 Guman Singh. PW 11 Nizamuddin and PW 12 Abdul Mannan held that the accused fired two shots at police party with an intention to kill them. He further held that the act of the accused was such that if any one of the members of the police party would have died in consequence of the shots fired by him then he would have been held guilty of murder. 5. The controversy in this case has been reduced to a narrow compass. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant keeping in view the preponderance of evidence has frankly conceded that there are no grounds to challenge the conviction of the accused on merits. 6. However, I have looked into the relevant portion of the evidence. All five eye witnesses have made consistent statements. Inspite of searching cross-examination nothing has appeared in their statements on the basis of which the veracity of their evidence can be doubted. The statements of the eye witnesses stand corroborated by the first information report Ex. P/9 in which the names of the accused and the witnesses have been mentioned. The trial court after careful examination of the evidence and taking into consideration the contradictions appearing in their statements has held that the statements of the eye witnesses are reliable and I find no reason to hold otherwise. 7. The conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 307 I. P. C. is upheld. The accused .appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. has shown his age to be 18-19 years and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has estimated it to be 22 years. The accused is a young man. His continuance in jail for a number of years in the company of harden criminals is not likely to have any reformative effect upon him. Instead of reforming him it may induce him to a life of crime, which is neither in the interest of the society at large nor in the interest of the accused-appellant. He has already remained in custody for a period exceeding three years. 8. Instead of reforming him it may induce him to a life of crime, which is neither in the interest of the society at large nor in the interest of the accused-appellant. He has already remained in custody for a period exceeding three years. 8. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case, I consider it to be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of the accused-appellant. 9. I affirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I. P. C., but reduce the sentence from five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- to four years'rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of which lie shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 10. It is, however, made clear that the accused-appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. and the period of detention undergone by him during investigation, inquiry or trial before the date of conviction shall be set off against the term of imprisonment awarded by this Court. 11. With the above modification in the term of sentence the appeal stands dismissed. *******