N. N. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29 9-1978 by Sri Chandra Bhushan. Shah, learned IV Addi. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur who convicted the appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentenced him to five years RI. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine appellant was also ordered to undergo imprisonment for six months. A sum of Rs. 250/- out of the fine if realized was to be paid as compensation to Ram Singh, injured informent P. W. 1 by way of compensation, in Sessions trial no. 173 of 1976. ( 2 ) APPELLANT and injured are co-villagers; residents of village Gauhadia, police station Sehramau, district Shahjahanpur. ( 3 ) THE incident occurred on 28. 2. 1975 at about 4 P. M. when there was sufficient day light. Injured was grazing his cattle in Jhawar along-with his co-villager lamadar. P. W. 2 and Jagdishwar who were also grazing their respective cattle towards the west of the village. She buffalo of Sarju appellant stayed in the field of Khem Karan in which wheat crop was standing. Sarju asked injured Ram Singh to take out she-buffalo of Sarju from the field of Khem Karan but Ram Singh did not comply. Appellant felt enraged and hurled abuses on Ram Singh who paid him in the same coin. Sarju took out a country made pistol from his fold and fired a pistol shot at chest of informant; however, lamadar and Jagdishwer challenged the appellant who decamped. ( 4 ) THE informant was carried to his house by Jamadar where a cart was arranged; Ram Singh was taken to the police-station Sehramau South where he lodged F. I. R. Ext. Ka. 2 in the same evening at 8. 15 P. M. distance of police station from the see nee of occurrence was seven miles. Case was registered under Section 307, IPC at the police-station. Bloodstained shirt Ex. 1 and kurta Ext. 2 of the injured was taken into possession by clerk constable at the same time; injured was sent for medical examination where he was examined by Dr. S. P. Srivastava, Deputy Chief Medical Officer in the district hospital, Shahjaahnpur at 9. Case was registered under Section 307, IPC at the police-station. Bloodstained shirt Ex. 1 and kurta Ext. 2 of the injured was taken into possession by clerk constable at the same time; injured was sent for medical examination where he was examined by Dr. S. P. Srivastava, Deputy Chief Medical Officer in the district hospital, Shahjaahnpur at 9. P. M. ( 5 ) FOLLOWING injury was detected on his person: Multiple circular lacerated wounds of gun shot, each about 1/4 x 1/4 cm in an area extending from the lower ship on neck right shoulder and upper 1/4 of right arm-on chest upto the level of the nipples with surgical enphysima in an area of 16 x 12 cm on the right side of chest where wounds not probed. Other wounds are skin deep clots resolving. Opinion under observation, by gun shot firearm injury. Admitted Duration within 6 hourst vide Ext Ka-2. ( 6 ) DOCTOR has not been examined as his attendance was dispensed with on account of the admission of the learned Advocate for the appellant about genuineness of this document under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The endorsement is in following terms: Genuineness admitted.-Cross-examination of doctor not required. Formal proof dispensed with: Sd/15. 9. 1978 ( 7 ) SIMILARLY formal proof of other documents (charge-sheet etc.) was dispensed with on behalf of the appellant. ( 8 ) RAM Singh, P. W. 1, and Jamadar, P. W. 2, were examined in support of the prosecution case. ( 9 ) IN his statement accused denied to be the author of the injuries sustained by Ram Singh. He pleaded alibi, he further alleged that he had ill-will with Jamadar. In defence appellant examined D. W. 1, Ram Ratan and D. W. 2 Ram Bharose. He also filed voters list Ext. Kha 1 to show that Jamadar and Ram Bilas father of informant were sons of Sultan. ( 10 ) EXT. Kha 2 is copy of Khatoni from 1383 to 1385 Fasli which shows that names of Ram Bilas and Jamadar, sons of Sultan were recorded along-with Chokhey over plot no. 74 of village Gauhania. This evidence was filed to show that Jamadar had a motive to perjure. Ram Bharosey, D. W. 2, husband of sister of appellants father testified about the theft of bullock-cart; he further testified that Ram Bilas and his brother Jamadar etc. 74 of village Gauhania. This evidence was filed to show that Jamadar had a motive to perjure. Ram Bharosey, D. W. 2, husband of sister of appellants father testified about the theft of bullock-cart; he further testified that Ram Bilas and his brother Jamadar etc. were sent in connection with that case which ended in acquittal. However, no copy of that judgment is on record. Learned trial Judge disbelieved the defence and believed the P. Ws. ( 11 ) HE further found that it was a fit case for conviction under Section 307 IPC. and thus awarded the aforesaid sentence. ( 12 ) SRI P. N. Lal, learned Advocate for the appellant argued the appeal. His contention was that the occurrence took place at some dark hour of night and F. I. R. was ante-timed. However, in support of this argument he pointel out an admission of informant for which he conceded that in due course his school should have been closed at 4 P. M. but on that date it was closed earlier. That statement could not be shown to be false through cross-examination of Ram Singh. Moreover, had the occurrence taken place at some dark hour of night and the assailant was unknown, it could not have been possible on the part of the informant to have covered a distance of seven miles on bullock-cart (Lahroo) and to lodge the F. I. R. at 8. 15 P. M. Similarly his medical examination could not have been conducted in the same evening at 9 p. m. in the district hospital Shahjahanpur. Learned trial fudge rightly pointed out that no cross- examination was directed to show that there was any inordinate delay in lodging the report; similarly genuineness of the F. I. R. as proved by Ram Singh could not be shown to be suspicious through cross-examination of Ram Singh or Jamadar. ( 13 ) LEARNED trial Judge gave good reasons to hold that F. I. R. and medical examination were prompt in this case. ( 14 ) HAD the defence version been true there was no reason on the part of Ram Singh to have alleged appellant as the author of his injury. A careful perusal of the record shows that occurrence took place in broad day light and it was not a case of mistaken identity. Appellant was the author of the injury sustained by the victim. A careful perusal of the record shows that occurrence took place in broad day light and it was not a case of mistaken identity. Appellant was the author of the injury sustained by the victim. ( 15 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant further argued that the offence did not go beyond Section 324. IPC. , as doctor was not examined by the prosecution to testify that the injuries were dangerous to life. However, such contention was not raised before learned trial Judge. ( 16 ) I have quoted above in extenso the endorsement made by learned Advocate for the appellant in the court below dispensing with the attendance of the doctor. Under such circumstances it is not possible to hold that as doctor did not declare the injury as dangerous, so no murderous intent of appellant was made out. ( 17 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant also relied on Rekha Mandal and others v. The State v of Bihar. In that case the doctor examined but he did not allege the injury was dangerous. Moreover there were three assailants in that case armed with diverse weapons such as Pharsa, Spear and Lathi who inflicted as many as 17 injuries containing incised and punctured and bruises The author of the injury on the neck which was serious remained unknown and under such circumstances the conviction was altered from Section 307, IPC to Section 324, IPC. ( 18 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant next relied upon Chandra Ram v. State, In that case injuries were neither grievous nor dangerous to life nor there was any intention to commit murder and under such circumstances it was held that the case did not go beyond section 324, IPC. ( 19 ) IN Kimdan Singh v. State of Punjab, victum sustained simple injuries from a gun shot fired by the accused from a distance and under such circumstances the conviction was altered to Section 324, IPC ( 20 ) LEARNED Addi. Government Advocate referred Liyaqat Mian v. State of Bihar. In that case the accused fired a shot from close quarters. Victim sustained multiple pellet wounds on the left half of abdomen with one big lacerated wound 1"2 X 3 with charring of skin and multiple pellet would with charr- of skin on the left half of the left arm. Government Advocate referred Liyaqat Mian v. State of Bihar. In that case the accused fired a shot from close quarters. Victim sustained multiple pellet wounds on the left half of abdomen with one big lacerated wound 1"2 X 3 with charring of skin and multiple pellet would with charr- of skin on the left half of the left arm. It was held to be a clear case about commission of offence under Section 307, I. P. C. In the instant case also nature of weapon used, the seat of extensive injury on the chest, depth of which could not be probed at time of medical examination on account of risk involved; the damage sustained by the injured who had to be carried from the spot and had to be admitted in hospital and had to be kept under observation are clearly indicative of the shot having been fired with a murder our intent. ( 21 ) THE distinction between an offence under Section 324, I. P. C, and 307 IPC, is well established. In order to bring the offence under Section 307 home to the accused the prosecution must establish that his intention or knowledge was of the description mentioned in Section 300. I. P. C where evidence is not sufficient to establish with certainty the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge he could only be convicted under Section 324, IPC. ( 22 ) IN Badshah Singh and others v, The State5, the facts were as below: According to the prosecution, Khunni Singh and Kunwar Singh appellants were also with Badshah Singh and when Dular refused to accede to the protests of Badshah Singh, Khunni Singh gave Raja Ram a lathi blow and Badshah Singh shot at Dular with a pistol at the instigation of Kunwar Singh. Khunni Singh and Kunwar Singh pleaded alibi and Badshah Singh denied having fired at Dular and pleaded that when he protested he was assaulted by Dular and his companions. No counter report was lodged by any of the appellants, nor did Badshah Singh get himself medically examined. The injuries of Dular and Raja Ram were examined by Dr. S. R. Khanna. Medical Officer in charge of the District hospital at Shahjanpur in the midnight between the 12th and 13th August, 1954. No counter report was lodged by any of the appellants, nor did Badshah Singh get himself medically examined. The injuries of Dular and Raja Ram were examined by Dr. S. R. Khanna. Medical Officer in charge of the District hospital at Shahjanpur in the midnight between the 12th and 13th August, 1954. He found the following injuries on Dular: A large number of small and round gun shot wounds, each l/lottxl/lottx skin deep, spread in an area of 6"i 31/2 on the left buttock. He found blackening present on some wounds. Screening showed four small and round radio opaque shadows in outer and upper part of the left thigh resembling gunshots. The doctor took out five pellets from the wounds. In the opinion of the doctor the firearm had been fired from a very close range. In the opinion of the doctor the injury caused to Dular-was-a simple one. On the person of Raja Ram the doctor found one abrasion 3/4 x 1/6 on front part of the phalanx of the left thumb, the injury being simple and appearing to have been caused with a blunt weapon like a lathi. The injuries were stated before the doctor to have been caused at about 8 a. m. on 12. 8. 1954 which in his opinion was probable. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, however was that, regard being had to the nature of the injury caused to Dular Badshah Singh could not be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. According to him, the utmost that could be said was that Badshah Singh was guilty under Section 324, IPC. For liability under Section 307 the prosecution has to prove the following facts: (I) that the accused did an act, and (2) that the act was done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder. If hurt caused by such act, the offender becomes liable to transportation for life, otherwise the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed is 10 years. It would thus appear that the section itself does not take into consideration the effect of the act of the accused except as a measure of sentence to be imposed upon him. If hurt caused by such act, the offender becomes liable to transportation for life, otherwise the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed is 10 years. It would thus appear that the section itself does not take into consideration the effect of the act of the accused except as a measure of sentence to be imposed upon him. That being so, it cannot be argued that Badshah Singh should not be held guilty of the offence of attempted murder simply because the injuries caused to Dular were of a. superficial nature. What is to be seen is whether the act of Badshah Singh was of the nature contemplated by the section. The idea under-lying the offence punishable under that section seems to be that by his act the accused should be deemed to have done all that was necessary to commit the offence of murder the commission of that offence having been prevented by some event unknown to the accused and beyond his control. In the present case the facts disclosed are that Badshah Singh fired at Dular, and that he did so from a very close range. These facts are, in my opinion, sufficient to bring Badshah Singhs act within the mischief of Section 307, I. P. C. since in view of those facts he would be deemed to have fired the pistol at Dular with at least the knowledge that the shot would prove fatal. ( 23 ) I respectfully agree with these observations. So the conviction of appellant under Section 307, IPC , was rightly recorded. ( 24 ) ON the point of sentence, it was pointed out that appellant was below 21 years of age at the time of occurrence and, so the sentence awarded was excessive. I have carefully considered this prayer and reduce the period of Rigorous Imprisonment to a period of four years R. I. only. The sentence of fine shall fall off. Appellant is on bail. Let him surrender to his bail bonds forthwith and taken into custody to serve out the aforesaid sentence of four years, R. I. So the impugned order is modified accordingly. ( 25 ) APPEAL is thus partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed .