JUDGMENT G. D. Dubey, J. 1. This appeal was originally preferred by Kundan Singh, Suresh Kumar, Kishanpal Singh, Rohtas Singh and Hoshiar Singh against the judgment and order of first Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, holding them guilty of the offences punishable under section 148, 307 and 302 (both read with section 149) IPS and convicting them to various terms of imprisonment. A report has been received from C. J. M. Bulandshahr, Dated 7th August, 1989 that Kundan Singh, Suresh Kumar and Kishanpal Singh are dead. Hence the appeal filed by them has abated. Now the two appellants, viz. Rohtas Singh and Hoshiar Singh are left in this appeal. They have been sentenced to two years' R. I. under section 148, ten years' R. I. under section 307 read with section 149 IPC and to imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 149 IPC. 2. The prosecution story is that there was enmity between Ghanshyam Singh (PW 1) and appellants Kundan Singh, Suresh Kumar, Hoshiar Singh and Kishanpal Singh, some criminal litigations had also started and were pending on the date of occurrence. It is said that at about 3.30 p.m. on 12-11-1977, Kunwarpal Singh (brother of Ghanshyam Singh) was returning to his village Chola, police Station Chandpur, district Bulandshahr on cycle. This cycle accidently collided with Kishanpal Singh. Thereupon, Kishanpal Singh abused stating that he had deliberately dashed the cycle against him. He had threatened Ghanshyam Singh. Same day at about 4.00 P.M. Kunwar Pal Singh was inside his house in the said village when Kundan Singh, Kishanpal Singh and Hoshiar Singh each armed with revolver, Suresh Kumar with a D. B. B. L. gun and Rohtas Singh armed with country made pistol came towards the northern door of the house of the complainant, hurled abuses and challenged to him to come out of his house. Kunwarpal Singh came to the northern door of his house and all the five assailants fired their firearms towards him in an attempt to commit his murder. It was alleged that the gun-shots had hit Kunwarpal Singh on his chest. His wife Smt. Angoori Devi and his nephew Hari Ora (son of Ghanshyam Singh) also received injuries. At that time, Jaswant Singh (elder brother of Ghanshyam Singh) came out of the western door of his house apologising to the appellants for the acts done by his family members. His wife Smt. Angoori Devi and his nephew Hari Ora (son of Ghanshyam Singh) also received injuries. At that time, Jaswant Singh (elder brother of Ghanshyam Singh) came out of the western door of his house apologising to the appellants for the acts done by his family members. Appellants Kundan Singh and Suresh Kumar (now dead) ran towards him and fired from close range causing fatal injuries to him. Jaswant Singh died on the spot. It has been urged that Ghanshyam Singh and other witnesses had seen the occurrence. After the assailants had gone away from the place of occurrence, Ghanshyam Singh went inside and found Kunwarpal Singh and two other injured. He had gathered the facts about the incident of firing at Kunwarpal Singh, his wife Smt. Angoori Devi and Hari Om. A first information report was lodged by Ghanshyam Singh at Police station Chandpur at 5.45 p.m. same day. The injured had been brought by Ghanshyam Singh from the place of occurrence. The injured were taken by the family members of Ghanshyam Singh to the hospital whereas Ghanshyam Singh had proceeded towards the police station. The injuries of Kishanpal Singh were examined at 7.00 p.m. on 12-11-1977 by Dr. Aqil Ahmad (PW 6) on the same day in District Hospital, Bulandshahr. The doctor had found one gun-shot wound of entry 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm on right side chest 1 cm below nipple at 6 O'clock position. The doctor had found the injuries simple in nature. Duration was opined to be fresh. 3. The same Dr. Aqil Ahmad (PW 6) had examined Smt. Angoori Devi at 7.15 p.m. He had found the following three injuries :- 1. Gun shot wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x not probed on the left side chest, at 1 O'clock position, 10 cm above the left nipple. 2. Gun shot wound of entry on the left breast, 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm in area of 4 cm above the nipple at 12 O'clock position. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on the left forearm 3-1/2 cm below from the left wrist. 4. All the injuries were kept under observation and they were opined to have been caused by gun-shot. Duration was fresh. Ghanshyam had lodged report in police station Chandpur at 5.45 p.m. same day. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on the left forearm 3-1/2 cm below from the left wrist. 4. All the injuries were kept under observation and they were opined to have been caused by gun-shot. Duration was fresh. Ghanshyam had lodged report in police station Chandpur at 5.45 p.m. same day. The investigation had been taken up by Shish Pal Singh Tomar (PW 5). After interrogation Ghanshyam Singh, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. The inquest was started in the morning of 13-11-1977 and the dead body was sent to the mortuary. The third injured Hari Om aged about ten years had been sent to District Hospital, Bulandshahr for medical examination. He too was examined by Dr. Aqil Ahmad who found one abrasion 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on the root of left index finger and abrasion of similar size on right fore-arm. The doctor had come to the conclusion that both injuries were caused by friction and were simple in nature. The Investigating Officer found blood at the spot and collected blood stained and plain earth in separate containers. He also found marks of pellets on wall and doors on the northern side of the house. He also found four empty cartridge cases of Mauzer and also one missed catridge. Towards west, one empty cartridge case of twelve bore was found. After interogating the witnesses he had submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. 5. The post mortem on the dead body had been conducted by Dr. D. B. Singh (PW 9) at 4.00 p.m. on 13-11-1977. He had found two gun-shot wounds as under :- 1. Gun shot wound 8-1/2" x 4-1/2 x brain matter covering both the eyes, fore-head and both maxillae. The site of margin of wound on left side temporal region is inverted blackening at the margine. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 2-1/2" x 1-1/4" x chest cavity on the left collar bone in the middle with blackening around it. 6. The frontal and both maxillae bone had ruptured into pieces. Frontal lobes of brain were lacerated under injury no. 1. The doctor found that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The doctor had also opined that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellants had pleaded not guilty to the charges. Frontal lobes of brain were lacerated under injury no. 1. The doctor found that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The doctor had also opined that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellants had pleaded not guilty to the charges. It has been alleged by them that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Only one witness Bishan Singh was produced in defence. He was an Executive Magistrate on 12-11-1977. On that date he had recorded the statement of Kunwarpal Singh (PW 1) which has been proved as Ext. Kha 3. 7. After appraisal of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge had found all the appellants guilty of the offences mentioned above. 8. It has been argued that there was no common object between appellants Rohtas, Hoshiar Singh and the two assailants Suresh Kumar and Kundan Singh about the murder of Jaswant Singh. Our attention was drawn to the evidence on record for the purpose of showing that after causing injuries on the person of Kunwarpal Singh, Smt. Angoori Devi and Dharampal, the five appellants had not proceeded together. Only actual killers Suresh Kumar and Kundan Singh had proceeded towards Jaswant Singh when he had come out from the western door and was apoligising with the appellants about the conduct of Kunwarpal Singh. The act of killing Jaswant Singh was the individual act of assailants Suresh Kumar and Kundan Singh. It was urged that the two appellants, who are now alive, could not be held guilty for the murder of Jaswant Singh. We have heard learned counsel for the State also on this point. Ghanshyam Singh had stated in the very examination-in-chief that after firing towards Kunwarpal the remaining three appellants i.e. Rohtas Singh, Hoshiar Singh and Kishanpal Singh remained standing towards western side of the house of Kishanpal Singh. They had not proceeded towards Jaswant Singh. Only two i.e. Suresh Kumar and Kundan Singh had proceeded towards Jaswant Singh and after killing him had joined the remaining three assailants and had run away towards their Gher. Kunwarpal Singh (PW 2) has also stated on similar lines in his cross-examination. Thus it is obvious that appellants Hoshiar Singh and Rohtas Singh had no common object with assailants Suresh Kumar and Kundan Singh in the act of killing of Jaswant Singh. Kunwarpal Singh (PW 2) has also stated on similar lines in his cross-examination. Thus it is obvious that appellants Hoshiar Singh and Rohtas Singh had no common object with assailants Suresh Kumar and Kundan Singh in the act of killing of Jaswant Singh. There is no evidence on record to show that any object had developed at the spot. From the very begining, the common object of all the five was to punish Kunwarpal Singh for deliberately dashing his cycle against the body of Kishanpal Singh appellant. We, therefore, hold that appellants Rohtas Singh and Hoshiar Singh could not be held guilty for the offence under section 302 with the aid of section 149 IPC as they had no common object with others. 9. The second point raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the injuries of Kunwarpal were simple in nature. It was urged that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants had done the act with an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they would have caused the death of Kunwarpal, they would have been guilty of murder. The injuries caused to Smt. Angoori Devi and Dharampal were only accidental when they happened to reach at the place of occurrence at the time of firing of one shot by the appellant. From the very first information report to the evidence of the prosecution was that the appellants had only intention to cause injuries on the person of Kunwarpal for alleged deliberate dashing of cycle by him (Kunwarpal) against the body of Kishanpal. It was urged that in these circumstances the two appellants could not be held guilty of the offence under section 307 read with section 149 IPC at the best they could have been guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 149 IPC. 10. We have examined the records in minute details. In the first information report, it was stated that when the appellants came in front of the house of Kunwarpal they asked Kunwarpal to come out of his house as they have to take revenge The words used are, "Aaj Saale Nikal tujhe hi dekhna hai." It is no doubt written in the first information report that with an intention to kill Kunwarpal the appellant had fired towards him. This intention does not appear from the injuries found on the persons of any one of the injured. There was only one gun-shot wound of 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm on the chest region which was recorded to be simple in nature by Dr. Aqil Ahmad. The injuries of Smt. Angoori Devi had been caused when she had come out of her house to save her husband. Her injuries were not opined to be grievous at any point of time even though they were kept under observation. The injuries of Hari Om were only abrasions and simple in nature. Considering the nature of injuries, it is apparent that the intention of the assailants was not to cause death. 11. The prosecution witnesses have stated that all the appellants had fired only once towards Kunwarpal. Kunwarpal had gone inside the house after receiving injuries. No attempt had been made thereafter to follow the three injured and cause any further injury furtherance of the common object of the appellants. Ram Das (PW 2) had stated that when Suresh Kumar and Kundan Singh had fired towards Jaswant Singh, the other three assailants had remained standing in the Gher of Kunwarpal. 12. Kunwarpal (PW 3) had not stated in his examination-in-chief that the appellants had a common object of making an attempt to commit his murder. He too had stated that when the appellants came, they had only challenged KUNWARPAL to come out as they have to take revenge of the incident which occurred a little before with Kishanpal. It cannot be disputed that the object of the fire was so cause hurt which was unlawful. From the statements of any one of the witnesses, it does not transpire that members of unlawful assembly had any common object to make an attempt to commit murder of Kunwarpal or any one of the other injured. Their intention from the very beginning was to cause simple hurt with their respective fire arms. Hence at the best the appellants and their other companions were guilty of the offences under section 324 IPC and also under section 148 IPC. The offences under section 324 IPC will be read with section 149 IPC. Therefore, the appellants could not be held guilty of the offences under section 307 read with section 149 IPC. 13. Hence at the best the appellants and their other companions were guilty of the offences under section 324 IPC and also under section 148 IPC. The offences under section 324 IPC will be read with section 149 IPC. Therefore, the appellants could not be held guilty of the offences under section 307 read with section 149 IPC. 13. On the question of sentence, it was contended that this appeal is coming for hearing after twelve years. Hence the period of imprisonment already undergone should be held sufficient. We agree with his contention. Appellant Rohtas Singh was twenty three years and appellant Hoshiar Singh was twenty one years of age on the date of his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC on 3-8-1978 before the lower court. Considering their young age, we do not feel inclined to impose any sentence of imprisonment under section 324 IPC. Appellants Rohtas Singh and Hoshiar Singh had surrendered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21-11-1977 and 28-11-1977 respectively. They had been granted bail by this court on 24-2- 1978. Thereafter, they were again taken into custody after being held guilty on 4-9-1978. They were granted bail by this Court on 6-9-1978. These appellants had been in jail for more than three months. This imprisonment should be held sufficient. However, the appellants should be imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each for the offence under section 324 read with section 149 IPC. 14. No other point has been pressed. The appeal is partly allowed. The order of the lower court holding the appellants guilty under section 302 IPC is set aside. They are acquitted of the charge under the said section. The conviction of each of the appellants under section 148 IPC is, however, maintained. The conviction of each of the appellants under section 307 read with section 149 IPC is altered to section 324 read with section. 149 IPC under each of these aforesaid sections, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by each of the appellants. In addition to above, each of the appellants are sentenced under section 324 IPC to a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo six months' R. I. On realization of fine Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to Kunwarpal Singh. The appellants are allowed three months' time from today to pay the fine. Appeal partly allowed.