JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar dated 26-10-1978 by which the appellant Pannalal was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imrisonmant for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. By this very judgment the appellant was further convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that on 28-6-1977 at about 6-6.15 A.M when PW 3 Laluram was going from his house to his Nohra for easing while he was passing before the house Manphoolram, Manphool, Jagdish and Ram Narain were standing there. As soon as Laluram passed from there they Started hurling abuses and the other accused were also came there. The accused appellant Pannalal was also present there armed with a, 12 bore gun, while Rajaram and Kashiram were armed with Gandasi and rest of the accused were armed with lathis. All these accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and proceeded towards the witness. Kishan Kumar son of Laluram was also present with his father. Pannalal appellant fired a gun shot the pallets of which hit Kishan Kumar on his head and then another shot, was fired which hit Laluram in his abdomen. Thereafter, both these victims escaped into their Nohra. At that time Hetram, Dharampal and Dhudaram came on the scene and intervened to rescue both these persons. Both the victims were taken to the Hospital and it was found that Laluram had received 5 gun shot injuries and Kishan Kumar had received one lacerated wound on left parietal region. 3. A first information report of the incident was lodged and a case was registered against all the accused persons. After close of the investigation, the police filed a challan against all the 8 accused persons under Sections 147 and 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was ultimately committed to the court of Sessions. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got a large number of documents exhibited. After close of the investigation, the police filed a challan against all the 8 accused persons under Sections 147 and 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was ultimately committed to the court of Sessions. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got a large number of documents exhibited. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after due trial found the accused appellant Pannalal guilty under sections 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. Rest of the accused were acquitted of the charges. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence the accused appellant Pannalal preferred the present appeal before this Court. 6. I have heard Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. G.M. Bhandari, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr, R.N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the complainant, and have perused the record. 7. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant took me to various statements. After perusing the statements of the witnesses and specially the statements of PW 3 Laluram and PW 4 Kishan Kumar, it is established that the accused Pannalal fired a shot which caused injuries to Laluram as well as Kishan Kumar. From the testimony of Doctor, it is clear that the injuries caused to Laluram was a fire arm injury. But injury on Kishan Kumar was found to be doubtful. But the fact remains that the testimony of Laluram and Kishan Kumar is categorical that Pannalal was armed with a 12 bore gun and he fired a shot which cause injuries to Laluram. In view of these facts, it is apparent that the accused Pannalal is the person who fired the shoot which caused injuries to Laluram. 8. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the nature of injuries it is apparent that they are simple in nature and they were not intended to have caused any serious harm to the victim. They are small pallet injuries. Therefore, it would be proper to convict the accused appellant under section 324 IPC instead of under section 307 IPC. 9. I think the contention of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad appears to be correct. Thus, looking to the nature of the injuries, it cannot be said that they are of serious nature. Thus, it would be safer to convict the accused under section 324 IPC. The accused had already suffered 18 days imprisonment. 9. I think the contention of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad appears to be correct. Thus, looking to the nature of the injuries, it cannot be said that they are of serious nature. Thus, it would be safer to convict the accused under section 324 IPC. The accused had already suffered 18 days imprisonment. The incident is of the year 1977. Therefore, I reduce the substantive sentence to that of already undergone but impose a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment to fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The fine should be deposited within a period of one month from today. The amount of fine of Rs. 2000/- if so realised should be paid to Laluram or his heirs. 10. The appeal is disposed of with the above modification. The conviction of the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustained, but his sentence is reduced to that of already undergone.Appeal partly allowed. *******