(1) THIS appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellants Mastan Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Ajit Singh. Mastan Singh has been convicted u/s 307 Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment whereas the other two have been convicted u/s 307 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to three and a half years rigorous imprisonment. (2) MASTAN Singh has also been convicted u/s 336 read with S. 34 IPC and is sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment whereas Bhajan Singh has been convicted u/s 336 and is sentenced to six months and Ajit Singh has been convicted u/s 336 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. (3) THE prosecutions case at the trial was that all these persons reached the house of injured Bachan Singh, Public Witness 1 and it is alleged that when Bhajan Singh raised his gun, Bachan Singh closed his door and thereafter a shot was fired which struck at the door ; thereafter Mastan Singh and Ajit Singh climbed on the roof of Mastan Singhs Kotha and from there they noticed Bachan Singh and his wife Mahinder Kaur, Public Witness 3. They came out of the room and went into the courtyard. It is alleged that Ajit Singh suggested to Mastan Singh to take the opportunity and Mastan Singh by a countrymade pistol fired three shots which resulted in pellet injuries to Bachan Singh and his wife. (4) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants contended that so far as the story about the shooting at the door is concerned there is a contradiction in the evidence as to whether the door was closed when Bhajan Singh raised his gun or it was already closed. Except this so far as Bhajan Singh is concerned, there is no part attributed to him. As regards the other two who climbed on the roof it was contended that Ajit Singh is said to have only spoken or said something and he was armed with a gandasa which was not used and it was contended that the injuries were only injuries by pellets. It was contended that the sentence awarded was four years and now after so many years no useful purpose is served by sending them in jail. It was contended that the sentence awarded was four years and now after so many years no useful purpose is served by sending them in jail. (5) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State on the other hand contended that so far as Bhajan Singh is concerned the prosecutions case is that whether he raised his gun towards Bachan Singh and Bachan Singh closed his doors and Bhajan Singh fired his gun at the door. So far as the others are concerned it is contended that not only Ajit Singh said something and encouraged Mastan Singh in shooting Bachan Singh and his wife but he accompanied him on the roof when Mastan Singh was armed with a pistol and they had gone there with a design. These circumstances clearly establish the common intention. On the question of sentence learned counsel contended that in the circumstances of the case the sentence awarded is already lenient. (6) AS far as Bhajan Singh is concerned, it is not disputed that as far as the incident of shooting from the top of the roof is concerned he was not present there. There is some controversy about the incident in the manner in which it took place when it is alleged that a shot was fired at the door by Bhajan Singh. In these circumstances so far as the incident of shooting by Mastan Singh is concerned from the top of the roof it could not be said that Bhajan Singh shared any common intention. Under these circumstances conviction of Bhajan Singh u/s 307 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code could not be maintained. As regards Mastan Singh and Ajit Singh are concerned the evidence clearly establishes that Mastan Singh fired three shots with his countrymade pistol which resulted in pellet injuries to both Bachan Singh and his wife Mahinder Kaur. These injuries are alleged to be by pellets. Under these circumstances conviction of Mastan Singh u/s 307 Indian Penal Code could not be assailed. Ajit Singh not only encouraged Mastan Singh to take the opportunity and fire but climbed with Mastan Singh and Mastan Singh was armed with a countrymade pistol on the roof of the house of Mastan Singh. Mastan Singh took the opportunity to shoot at Bachan Singh as apparently door was closed and so he climbed on the roof to see where Bachan Singh is. Mastan Singh took the opportunity to shoot at Bachan Singh as apparently door was closed and so he climbed on the roof to see where Bachan Singh is. Under these circumstances conviction of Ajit Singh u/s 307 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code could not be said to be unjustified. As regards the sentence in our opinion the sentence awarded cannot be said to be excessive. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to Mastan Singh and Ajit Singh. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently conviction of Bhajan Singh u/s 307 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code is set aside ; his bail bond, therefore, be cancelled. So far as the other two are concerned, as their appeals are dismissed they will surrender to the bail bonds to serve out the sentence. As regards conviction of all under S. 336, 336/34 Indian Penal Code as all have served sentences awarded to them, conviction u/s 336, 336 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code are maintained.