JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted of the offence under Section 307, IPC and has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 27, Arms Act and has been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences ware ordered to run concurrently. 2. The occurrence in this case took place on a very trivial matter. The young buffalo of the deceased Balram started eating 'Dana' in the 'Than' of the accused Ram Pratap. Ram Pratap noticed it on 29-10-83 at about 7.00-7-30 p.m. when he returned from his field. The accused objected to it to the servant of Balram namely: Nathuram and slapped him telling him as to why he did not tie the young buffallo. Nathuram started weeping and went inside the house and narrated Balram about the incident. Thereafter Balram came out from the house on the "chabutri" Hot words were exchanged between the two brothers. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, Ram Pratap went inside the house and came back armed with a gun and fired a shot, which hit Balram on the face and the chest as a result of which he fell down. Balrams statement was recorded at Chak-3 ML by the Station House Officer, Police Station. Sri Ganganagar. On which, a case under Sec 307, IPC was registered. The spot investigation and other investigation was conducted. Injuries on the person of Balram were examined by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused and the accused was ultimately tried by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, Hemanshu Mishra was examined as a court witness. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded, in which he came out with the story that when slapping was reported by Nathuram, Balram came out of the house. The young buffalo also went near the platform of Balram's house. Balram came angrily on the chabutra and told him as to why he slapped Nathiya and asked to fire his mother (young Katti). The young buffalo also went near the platform of Balram's house. Balram came angrily on the chabutra and told him as to why he slapped Nathiya and asked to fire his mother (young Katti). In anger he fired at the young buffalo but accidentally, the pellets hit Balram. He had no enmity with Balram. Their relations were affectionate. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments found that the offence under Section 302, IPC is not made out against the appellant and consequently he acquitted the appellant of the said offence. He, however, convicted him of the offence under Section 307, IPC and 27 Arms Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. I have heard Mr. A. N. Mulla, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. M. D. Purohit and Mr. Bastichand Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. M. L. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the offence under Section 307, IPC is not made out against the appellant. The occurrence in fact took place as alleged by the accused and not in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. Pellets accidentally hit the victim As a matter of fact, the gun was not aimed at the victim. In my opinion, this contention is completely devoid of force. Not a single pellet hit the body of the young buffalo, If the buffalo was aimed at, certainly some pellets would have hit the buffalo. Balram was on the height as he was standing on the platform and he was hit on the face and chest. This shows that the gun was aimed at him. 7. Above mentioned circumstances along with the evidence on record clearly establish that the shot was fired at Balram. I need not refer the other evidence on record. I agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the shot was fired by the accused at the deceased and it was fired in anger. The appellant has already acquitted of the offence under Section 302, IPC and no appeal has been preferred by the state against the acquittal. I agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the shot was fired by the accused at the deceased and it was fired in anger. The appellant has already acquitted of the offence under Section 302, IPC and no appeal has been preferred by the state against the acquittal. The complainant's revision was dismissed as stated by the learned counsel for the complainant So, I need not examine the question of commission of the offence under Section 302, IPC The appellants conviction for the offence under Section 307, IPC was legal, proper and justified. 8. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be stated that the occurrence took place on a trifle. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the intervening circumstances, which resulted into the death of the victim Balram. There was no bad-blood between the accused and the victim. The appellant is in custody since 14-11-83, Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the sentence of five years would be adequate. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is mentioned under Section 307, IPC and under Section 27 Arms Act. However, the sentence under Section 307 IPC is reduced to five years. The sentence for the offence under Section 27, Arms Act is also maintained. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Sentences of fine are remitted.Appeal Partly allowed. *******