JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by Ajayab Singh against the judgment of Sessions Judge Churu dated September 5, 1983 whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 307 and 322 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and one year respectively. Both the sentences have beet, made to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on May 14, 1932 at about 11.30 p m. Sajjan Singh, Sub-inspector, Police alongwith Ramu Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of P.S Dharamstup were sitting at Police Chowki near railway station, Churu. At that time Om Prakash and Nemi Chand constables of the chowki came and informed Sajjan ingh and Ramu Singh that one Sardar and against judgment of Sessions Judge Cburu dated 5-9-83 in S C. No. 40/82. six other persons were quarrelling with Chandan Mal, proprietor of Shanti Lodge. An Ambassador car was standing nearby. One of the persons out of them had a gun with him. Sajjan Singh, Sub-inspector asked about the gun licence from the person who was holding the gun. That man started abusing and pointedly aimed the gun towards the constables. Thereafter the person holding the gun and one Avinash and one mere person sat in the car and the same was driven away. Out of his associates Ajayab Singh, Sardar Singh, Jai Singh and Mool Singh were caught bold of by the police Constables and brought to Police Chowki where Sajjan Singh was sitting. Sajjan Sirgh thereupon phoned to Police Station, Kotwali and called the police party. Sometime thereafter Sohan Lal, Assistant Sub-inspector, Surendra Singh and other constables reached the Police Chowki from the Kotwali. Sajjan Singh started to make a search of the person of Ajayab Singh whereupon Ajayab Singh took out a pistol from the pocket of his trousers. When Sohan Lal began to snatch the pistol from Ajayab Singh, the latter caused injury on his hansi and also fired a shot from his pistol which bit the heel of the left leg of Surendra Singh constable. Thereafter Sajjan Singh and other constables chased the persons who had run away in the car. When Sohan Lal began to snatch the pistol from Ajayab Singh, the latter caused injury on his hansi and also fired a shot from his pistol which bit the heel of the left leg of Surendra Singh constable. Thereafter Sajjan Singh and other constables chased the persons who had run away in the car. At a distance of about 40 Kms., near a field, the car was found with its tyre punctured and petrol exhausted but none of the persons who occupied the car were found there Sajjan Singh then came back and lodged a report of the entile incident whereupon a case was registered, Avinash was arrested on May 15, 1982. Ajayab Singh was also arrested on the same date and as also Mool Singh and Sardar Singh. The other two persons who had run away in the car could not be arrested. Police came, to know that those two persons had been killed in a police encounter in Kanpur. According to the prosecution these accused persons had come to Churu to commit dacoity. Ajayab Singh appellant was charged for the offence under sections 147, 399, 402, 313 and 332 Indian Penal Code and other three accused mere charged for the offence under sections 147, 399 and 402 Indian Penal Code All of them pleaded not guilty. The version of Ajayab Singh in his statement under sections 313 Cr P.C. was that on May 13, 1982 at about 4 a m., he had alighted from Jodhpur Mail at Churu Stationand he was arrested by the police there. He had an amount of Rs. 30,000/- in his briefcase. The police took away the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and only the remaining amount was shown to have been recovered. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Ajayab Singh examined Gaje Singh DW 1 in defence. The Sessions Judge, Churu after trial held only Ajayab Singh guilty for the offences under section 307 & 322 ICP and after convicting him, sentenced as aforesaid. The remaining three accused persons were acquitted for all the charges. The Sessions Judge did not believe the version of the prosecution that the accused persons with others had assembled at Churu on May 14, 1982 in order to commit a dacoity. The remaining three accused persons were acquitted for all the charges. The Sessions Judge did not believe the version of the prosecution that the accused persons with others had assembled at Churu on May 14, 1982 in order to commit a dacoity. However, he believed the prosecution case about the other part of the incident that whin Ajayab Singh was taken to the Police Chowki and was being searched by Sajjan Singh, he caused injury to the bands of Sohan Lal, constable and also fired a pistol shot which hit on the left heel of Sunder Singh constable. Out of the prosecution witnesses Soban Lal PW 1, Surendra Singh PW 2., Ramu Singh PW 4., Nemi Chand PW 5. Om Prakash PW 7 and Sajjan Singh PW 8 are police officials and they have supported the version of the prosecution. So far as Chandan Mal, PW 3 and Mohamad Ali. PW 6 are concerned, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution The injuries sustained by Sohan Lal and Surendra Singh were examined by Dr. Mohan Jain. PW 8. According to his injury reports Ex. P/21 and Ex. P/22 Sohan Lal had swolling and tenderness over dorsum of his left hand and posterio lateral aspect of left wrist and an oblique incision on post aspect of proximal ⅓rd of left forearm Surendra Singh constable had a wound of entry situated 1/4" interior to left medical malcolus and wound of exist on posterior medical aspect of left heel. According to the doctor, these injuries were caused by fire arm. No bone injury was detected on the body of Surendra Singh. It is true that the prosecution did not examine Chandan Mal who was proprietor of Shansi Lodge to coroborate its version that the appellant and his associates were quarrelling with Chandanmal. However, all of them have stated that one of these persons had rifle in his hand. Ramsingh constable enquired about the licence of the rifle. Ajayab Singh did not give licence and on the other hand aimed his rifle at Ramusingh and threatened him. Thereafter, Ajayab Singh and three acquitted accused persons were taken to the Police Chowki where Sajjan Singh was sitting Sajjan Singh telephoned to Police Station Kotwali from where Sohan Lal Assistant Sub- Inspector with police party came to the police cbowki. Ajayab Singh did not give licence and on the other hand aimed his rifle at Ramusingh and threatened him. Thereafter, Ajayab Singh and three acquitted accused persons were taken to the Police Chowki where Sajjan Singh was sitting Sajjan Singh telephoned to Police Station Kotwali from where Sohan Lal Assistant Sub- Inspector with police party came to the police cbowki. When search of the person of Ajayab Singh was being made, he took out a pistol from his trousers. When Sohan Lal tried to snatch the pistol, Ajayab Singh inflicted injury on his hand and also fired a pistol shot which hit Surendra Singh on his left heel. This version of the incident ha- been given by Sohan Lal PW 1 (One of the injured). Surendra Singh. PW 2 who sustained injury by pistol shot Rainusingh PW 4 Nemi Chanel PW 5, Om Prakash PW 7 and Sajjan Singh PW-8. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony simply because these witnesses were police officials or police constables. It is not suggested that any of the police officials caused these injuries to Sohan Lal and Surendra Singh and there was also no other reason for that. Sajjan Singh PW 8 has denied the suggestion advanced to him on behalf of Ajayab Singh that police had caught him on the Railway Station, Churu had taken out an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from his brief-case out of a total amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Sajjan Singh was only making a personal search of Ajayab Singh and before making his arrest at that time, Ajayab Singh inflicted injuries on Sohan Lal and also caused injury to Surendra Singh by firing a pistol shot which hit on the heel of his left feet. 3. The only question is as to what offences was committed by the appellant. The Sessions Judge, Churu has convicted the appellant for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. It is very clear from the evidence that the incident started because the gun licence was asked for from the person who had a rifle in his hand. That person alongwith two more persons ran away in the car. The Sessions Judge, Churu has convicted the appellant for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. It is very clear from the evidence that the incident started because the gun licence was asked for from the person who had a rifle in his hand. That person alongwith two more persons ran away in the car. The appellant did not hold any rifle and no licence was asked for from him near Shansi Lodge Hotel, it was only when the appellant had been taken to Police Chowki and his personal search was being made that he took out the pistol from his trousers and fired a single shot which hit on the left foot of Surendra Singh. It cannot be said in the back-ground in which the incident took place that the appellant fired the pistol shot with an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by his act death of Surendra Singh would have been caused be would be guilty of murder. It appears that the appellant only wanted to get himself rid of from the police by firing a pistol shot which hit on the foot heel of Surendra Singh. The injuries on Sohan Lal were inflicted while he was attempting to snatch the pistol. In such circumstances, the only offence which is made out against the appellant is for the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code because there was fracture of first meta carpel bone of Sohan Lal constable. The Sessions Judge, Churu was not justified in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under section 307 IPC. It is also correct that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt to two police constables when they were discharging their duty as public servant with intent to prevent them from discharging their duty. The appellant was therefore, also guilty for the offence under section 332 IPC. 4. I therefore partly allow this appeal, set aside his conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC. I hold the appellant Ajayab Singh guilty for the offence under sections 325 and 332 Indian Penal Code and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offences under section 325 IPC. He is further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 332 IPC. Both the sentences will run concurrently.Appeal partly allowed. *******