JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal filed by the appellant-accused against his conviction under section 307 IPC, and sentence for three years' rigorous imprisonment with it tine of Rs. 200/- in default 6 months' R. I. Shri Brijraj Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the offence against the accused appellant cannot be beyond S. 324 Indian Penal Code and he had wrongly been convicted under S. 307 1. P. C. 2. The prosecution case is that there was some enmity between the accused and injured complainant Fatehsingh. and in the afternoon of 19th December, 1975 there was some exchange of hot words. In the intervening night of 19th & 20th December, 1975, Bhanwarlal was on duty as a sentry from 12 (0 in the night upto 300 a. m At about 1.3(1 am Bhanwarlal went inside the barrack, where Fatehsingh (PW4), Nathu Singh (PW?) and Mithalal (PW3) and Jagdish Prasad constables were sleeping on their cots. Bhanwarlal removed the quilt from the face of Fatehsingh and enquired of him about the time and on Fatehsingh telling him that it was 1.30 a. m. Bhanwarlal putting the barrel of the rifle he had with him, in the right cheek of Fatehsingh fired the shot, thereby causing injury to him. 3. Mithalal, Nathusingh, and Jagdish Prasad the constables woke up and saw Bhanwarlal standing there with the rifle towards Fatehsingh. Bhanwarlal then ran away from the barrack. Davi Singh (PW 11) HC, and Kanhaiyalal (PW 12) (SHO) also reached on hearing the noise and Devisingh caught hold of Bhanwarlal and took the rifle from him. Fatehsingh lodged an oral report with the SHO Kanhaiyalal (PW 12). A case was registered against the accused-appellant and the investigation started. The accused was arrested vide memo (Fx. P. 2). Rifle with him, along with nine live cartridges and one empty cartridge were taken in possession by the SHO vide memo (Ex. P. 4). The investigation resulted in submitting the challan and prosecution of the accused. 4. According to the trial court, the prosecution was successful in proving its case beyond all manner of doubt against the accused for the offence under S. 307 IPC. 5. The accused denied the charge and in his statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C. he submitted that there was some grappling between him and Fatehsingh. 4. According to the trial court, the prosecution was successful in proving its case beyond all manner of doubt against the accused for the offence under S. 307 IPC. 5. The accused denied the charge and in his statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C. he submitted that there was some grappling between him and Fatehsingh. It was a case of the accused that Fatehsingh came intoxicated from outside the police station and lay down. The accused not having the wrist-watch nor there teeing any in the police station, went to the barrack asked time from Fatehsing on which Fatehshlngh hurled abuses to him and tried to snatch the rifle, and in that process of altercation and grappling, the rifle got fired. He has further stated that he had no intention to kill Fatehsingh. According to him, Mithalal, Jagdish, Fatehsingh and Ramsingh all are in one group and they drink liquor altogether (sic) and collect the money from the people. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the medical examination of the injured, it has been found that he was drunken at that time when the incident happened and, therefore, the version of the accused finds support from the prosecution, itself. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and submitted that the enmity between the injured and the accused earlier to the incident is well proved. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and have also examined the entire record. In my opinion, the evidence of Fatehsingh is well corroborated by the statements of Mithalal (PW3), Nathusingh (PW4) and Jagdish (PW5). It is true that the medical evidence shows that when the injured was examined by the doctor, it was found that the injured had consumed the liquor. Dr. v. D. Kaviya (PWI) has stated that at the time of medical examination he found that the patient had consumed alcohol but he was not in intoxication I do not find any evidence either from the prosecution witnesses or otherwise to prove or to make the story of the defence plausible that the injured started altercation and caught hold of the rifle of the accused, on account of which there was sudden firing of the shot by the rifle in the process of snatching away of the rifle. 9. 9. This story appears to be completely an afterthought, and concocted one to create the defence. 10. The learned counsel submitted that looking to the nature of the injury since there was grappling the accused had ample opportunity to kill and commit the murder of the injured which he could have done without asking for therefore, it must be held that the offence was of S. 324 1. P. C. only. 11. According to the medical evidence, there were two wounds of firearms on the temporal region and could have been caused by one rifle shot. The trial court in a detailed discussion of the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that the looking to the nature of the injuries and the part of the body which is face, where. the rifle shot was fired, it is a clear case of S. 307 1. P. C. 12. Once the story of snatching rifle of the fire having been caused by gun in the process of snatching is ruled out, it is clear that the firing on rifle shot on the face of a person would certainly invoke the offence under S 307 I. P. C. The present one is not a case of accidental firing. Even if the injured was under intoxication and even if he abused the constable when he enquired about the time in the dead of the night at about 1.30 a m. to 2.00 a. m. it would not provide any justification for firing the shot at the face of Fatehsingh, constable who was sleeping. I am, therefore, convinced that the findings arrived a,i by the trial court based on detailed discussion of the evidence and law, require no interference in this appeal. 13. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction & sentence under S. 307 I. P. C. for 3 years' R. I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default. 6 months R.I. are maintained and upheld. The accused-appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds. The trial court is directed to get the accused appellant arrested and send him to jail for undergoing the sentence awarded by the trial court and upheld by this court. He shall get set off of the period of detention undergone by him under S. 428 Cr. P. C,Appeal dismissed. *******