J.R. CHOPRA, J. —, This is an appeal against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar dated 10.6.87 whereby the learned Judge has held the accused appellant Chadtu Singh guilty of the offence u/sec. 307 IPC and 27 Indian Arms Act and has sentenced him to 5 years R.I. together with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo 3 months R. I. on the first count and to a sentence of 2 years R.I. together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo one and a half months R.I. on the second count. The accused appellant Rawatiya has been held guilty of the offence u/sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC and has been sentenced to 5 years R.I. together with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo 3 months R.I. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that on 18.11.85 at about 10 A.M. Shri Daljeet Singh along with his elder brother Jagtar Singh belonging to village 12-G (Choti) were going on a tractor to bring their crop from the field and to serve the meals to their grand father. When they reached near the house of Mangla Ram, accused Chadtusingh and Rawatia gave them a sign to stop the tractor. As they suspected these two persons to be under the influence of Alcohol, they did not stop their tractor and took it directly to their field where their grand father was already present. No soon they served meals to their grand father Nagendra Singh, it is alleged that these two accused persons came running to their field and Rawatia told Chadtu Singh that they are big persons and so they have not stopped the tractor and so he must fire at them. On this, it is alleged that Chadtu Singh took out pistol from the fold of his Tehmat, which is said to be a Deshi Pistol of 315 bore and fired a shot with it on Shri Daljeet Singh which hit him on his left arm causing a fracture of his numerous bone. Daljeet Singh was shifted to Ganga-nagar Hospital. His statement was recorded by Brijlal F.C. which has been marked as Ex. P. 1. Daljeet Singh was shifted to Ganga-nagar Hospital. His statement was recorded by Brijlal F.C. which has been marked as Ex. P. 1. The report was then forwarded to P.S. Chunavad where a regular case was registered and after investigation the case against both the accused persons was challaned. The police recovered the crime pistol alongwith the empty cartridge lying inside the pistol and it was sent for ballistic examination and therefore, the report of the ballistic expert was obtained which has been marked Ex. P 16. Medical examination and X-Ray examination of the injuries received by Shri Daljeetsingh was got conducted and medical report Ex. P. 7, X-Ray plate Ex. P.5 & Ex. P-6 and X-ray reading report Ex. P. 9 were obtained. 3. After the usual investigation, the case against the accused persons was challaned in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate I Class Sri Ganga-nagar No. 1 from where it was committed for trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar from where it was transferred for trial to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Sriganganagar who after holding the trial convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. 4. I have heard Mr. M.K. Garg appearing for the accused appellant and Shri U.C.S. Singhvi,, P.P. appearing for the State and Shri H.S.S. Kharelia appearing for the complainant and have perused the record of the case, Mr. Garg does not challenged the conviction of the accused appellants. He has however submitted that both these accused persons at the time of the occurrence were aged 25 years. No previous conviction has been recorded against them. This is their first offence and hence they deserve leniency so far as sentence is concerned. He has submitted that Shri Rawatia was arrested on 23.11.85 and was released on bail during trial on 20.2.86 and later after conviction on 10 6.87 he was again taken into custody and was released on bail under the orders of this Court on 7-8-87,. Thus he has remained in custody for a period of about 5 months. According to him, Shri Chadtu Singh was arrested on 23.11.85 and was bailed out during trial on 4.7.86. He was convicted on 10.6,87 and thereafter he is in custody. Regarding sentence, he drew my attention to a decision of this Court in Muzafar Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) wherein for an offence u/sec. According to him, Shri Chadtu Singh was arrested on 23.11.85 and was bailed out during trial on 4.7.86. He was convicted on 10.6,87 and thereafter he is in custody. Regarding sentence, he drew my attention to a decision of this Court in Muzafar Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) wherein for an offence u/sec. 307 IPC the accused has served out a sentence of 1 year 6 months and 3 days and was released on the basis of the sentence which he has already undergone. He also referred to a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ramkishan vs. State of Haryana (2) where the conviction u/sec. 307 IPC was converted into one u/sec. 324 IPC and the sentence of the accused was reduced to the period of his custody. This case has no application to the facts of the present case because in that case, it was not proved that on account of the gun fire the victim has lost his vision and, therefore the gun fire injury was held to be simple and, therefore, in those circumstances, the sentence i.e. from 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- was reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine was enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 2000/-. My attention was also drawn to a case of this Court in 1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj. Suppl.) P. 402 wherein a sentence of 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- was reduced to 1 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, for the offence u/sec. 307 IPC. Mr. Garg also referred to a S.B. decision of this Court in Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3) wherein sentence of 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- recorded under section 307 IPC was reduced to the 7 months R.I. and the sentence of fine was however maintained. Mr. Garg next referred to a decision of their lordship of the Supreme Court in Shanbhai Dhulabhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat (4) where for a offence u/sec. 307 IPC the sentence of 5 years R.I. was reduced to the 2 years R.I. 5. Mr. U, C. S. Singhvi appearing for the State has submitted that no enmity existed between the injuries and the accused persons. 307 IPC the sentence of 5 years R.I. was reduced to the 2 years R.I. 5. Mr. U, C. S. Singhvi appearing for the State has submitted that no enmity existed between the injuries and the accused persons. The accused persons nurtured a false sense of ego and simply because Shri Daljeet Singh did not stop the tractor on making a sign by them, they hotly pursued the tractor and after going to the field of the complainant, they fired at him. In the facts & circumstances of this case the accused persons deserve no leniency. Mr. H. S. S. Kharelia has also submitted that it is a clear case of Dadagiri and, therefore, persons who nurtures such false sense of ego and used pistol to take revenge can not crave for the indulgence of the Court and must be strictly dealt with. 6. I have given my most earnest considerations to the submissions made at the bar. In this case, Shri Daljeet Singh P. W. 1, Jagtar Singh P.W. 2 have stated that they were going on their tractor to their field. These two persons gave a sing to stop the tractor near the house of Mangla Ram but they did not stop the tractor and went away to their field but these accused persons hotly perused them to their field and after they came their. Rawatia told Chadtu Singh that they are big persons and hence they have not stopped the tractor, when they gave a sign for it and therefore Chadtu Singh should fire at them and it has been stated by these two eye witnesses that on this Chadtu Singh took out his Deshi Pistol from the fold of his Tehmat and fired it on Daljeet Singh which hit him on his left arm. This testimony of these two eye witnesses is fully corroborated. So far as it relates with actual incident by P. W. 3 Balwinder Singh, the testimony of the injuries was also corroborated by P.W. 5 Dr. R.K. Gupta who has examined the injured and has got his injuries X-rayed. The pistol and the empty cartridge were sent for ballistic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan. The ballistic expert has reported that this country made pistol is having a bore of 315 and It has been fired some time before. R.K. Gupta who has examined the injured and has got his injuries X-rayed. The pistol and the empty cartridge were sent for ballistic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan. The ballistic expert has reported that this country made pistol is having a bore of 315 and It has been fired some time before. It was received by the Laboratory and it has further reported that empty cartridge of 315 bore found lodged in the country made crime pistol has been fired from the aforesaid country made pistol. It is, therefore, clear that this country made pistol has been used in the occurrence and pistol fire has hit Daljeet Singh on his left arm which is situated just near the vital portion of the body i. e. heart. I am therefore, convinced that the learned lower court was perfectly justified in holding the accused Chadtu Singh guilty of the offence u/sec 307 IPC and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 7. In this respect, I place reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shanabhai Dhulabhai Parmars case (supra) and relied by the learned counsel for the appellant. Now so far as sentence is concerned, I have already observed that Ramkishans case decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court has no application to the facts of the present case. In Muzafar Hussains case (supra), the accused was aged 22 to 23 years. He inflicted one injury, but it is not clear from the judgment as to what particular weapon was used for causing the injury and therefore, this judgment does not furnish any guidance as regards sentence. In Bhagwan Singhs case (supra) the facts were that a knife blow was inflicted on the right side of the ribs in 9th inter costal space mid axillary region. The stab wound on right side of chest was 3/4 x 1/4 cavity deep. In these facts & circumstances of that case, the sentence of 4 years was reduced to 7 months period. Looking to the age of the accused, who was of 20 years at the time of the occurrence. In Shanabhai Dhulabhai Parmars case, the facts were that the appellant fired a shot which hit the injured Shri Ambalal in the middle of the left upper arm which was only a few inches away from the vital part of the body namely, the heart. In Shanabhai Dhulabhai Parmars case, the facts were that the appellant fired a shot which hit the injured Shri Ambalal in the middle of the left upper arm which was only a few inches away from the vital part of the body namely, the heart. It is not mentioned whether any grievous injury was caused or not but their lordships observed that although the offence u/sec. 307 IPC is made out against the accused but looking to the fact that the appellant was prosecuted for a period of about 14 years, it was felt that 5 years R. I. should be reduced to 2 years R. I. 8. In this case, so far as the fire arm injury is concerned, it has been caused on the left arm over the elbow region. It has fractured the left upper arm. At the time of the occurrence, the accused was aged 25 years, No previous enmity existed between the accused persons and the injured. The accused did not fire from the pistol instantaneously but followed the tractor and went to the field of the injured person and there the shot was fired which adds gravity to the offence committed by them. Taking all these facts into consideration some lenient view is called for so far as sentence is concerned. I feel that the ends of justice would be met if accused Rawatia is sentenced to 1 years R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default to undergo 3 months R. I. As regards accused Chadtu Singh his 5 years substantive sentence u/sec 307 IPC is reduced to 3 years R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 1000/. His sentence u/sec. 27 Indian Arms Act is maintained. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence in default of the payment of fine recorded by the learned lower Court is also maintained. Accused Chadtu Singh is in Jail. Revised warrant of arrest should be sent to the Jail authorities by the trial Court for serving out the sentence imposed against him. Accused Rawatia is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No 2, Hanumangarh, The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanuman Garh is directed to effect his arrest. 9. Accused Rawatia is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No 2, Hanumangarh, The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanuman Garh is directed to effect his arrest. 9. Now so far as accused Rawatia is concerned having regard to all the facts & circumstances of this case, it will meet the ends of justice if he is sentenced to the period of his custody and the amount of fine of Rs. 1000/ is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- in default of the payment of this amount of fine, he shall further undergo 6 months R.l. Mr. Garg prays for 2 weeks time to deposit the amount of fine. Time prayed for is allowed. If the amount of fine is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh is directed to effect the arrest of the accused.