SR. BHARGAVA,J, J. ( 1 ) PAHALWAN Singh and Surendra Singh alias Chhotey filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 14th February, 1979 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti, convicting them with offence of attempt of murder under Section 307 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for five yews. Pahalwan Singh has died and his appeal has abated. Now appeal of Surendra Singh alone has to be considered. ( 2 ) INCIDENT giving rise to this appeal is alleged to have taken place on 28th March, 1976 at 9. 45 P. M. near Womens Hospital, Gandhi Nagar in Basti town; distance. between Police Station Kotwali, Basti and the spot of incident being 2-1/2 furlongs. Prosecution story is that after witnessing cinema show in Sunder Talkies of Basti, informant Mahendra, Krishna Kinkar Singh, Jagannath Singh, Balwant Singh, Ram Prasad and G. P. Tewari alias Prem Prakash were returning on three rickshaws. Krishna Kinkar Singh and Prem prakash Tewari were in the first rickshaw. In the second rickshaw Jagannath Singh and Ram Prasad were sitting: In the third rickshaw informant Mahendra and Bhagwant Singh were sitting. When the rickshaw carrying Krishna Kinkar and Prem Prakash reached near Womens Hospital at about 9. 45 P. M. a shot was fired on the front wheels of their rickshaw. Another shot was fired which hit Krishna Kinkar who shouted for help. Pahalwan Singh, Mahendra urf Lallan Singh and. appellant Surrendra Singh urf Chhotey emerged from a lane. Krishna Pratap and appellant Surendra Singh were holding pistols while Mahendra Singh alias Lallan Singh was holding gun. They came near the rickshaw of Krishna Kinkar Singh and fired three four shots. Pahalwan Singh came closer to the rickshaw and fired at Krishna Kinkar hitting him on the left side of abdomen but two rickshaws coming behind were stopped and rickshawalas ran. All the three miscreants were seen and recognised in electric light on the road. After firing the three miscreants retreated in the same lane. Further according to the prosecution this incident took place due to old enmity; ( 3 ) INFORMANT Mahendra Scribed written report, Exhibit Ka 3, and produced the same at Police Station at 10. 15 P. W. Chik Report was recorded in terms of written report and case was registered against the named miscreants. Further according to the prosecution this incident took place due to old enmity; ( 3 ) INFORMANT Mahendra Scribed written report, Exhibit Ka 3, and produced the same at Police Station at 10. 15 P. W. Chik Report was recorded in terms of written report and case was registered against the named miscreants. ( 4 ) KRISHNA Kinkar Singh and Prem Prakash were sent to District Hospital, Basti for medical examination. Dr. S. K. Gin, Medical Officer examined them the same night between 10. 25 and 10. 45 P. M. On the person of Krishna Kinkar Singh he found ten gun shot injuries which were on the fore head, eyelids, eye, left arm, left fore arm, neck, right fore arm, right side chest and on right leg. On the person of Prem Prakash Doctor found three gun shot wounds. They were on upper part of back of right side chest, upper part of right scapulla, and upper part of right arm. Injuries of Krishna Kinkar were extensive. Doctor prepared injury reports Exhibits Ka. 1 and Ka. 2 kept injuries of Krishna Kinkar under observation. But he was definite that injuries of both the injured were fresh fire arm injuries, in his opinion injuries or Prem Prakash were simple in nature. ( 5 ) INVESTIGATING of the case commenced the same night. Investigating Officer recorded statements of informant Mahendra Singh and witness Prem Prakash at the Hospital on the same night. On 29th March 1976 he inspected the scene of crime and prepared site plan, Exhibit Ka, 6. He recovered, blood stained and ordinary earth from the spot and prepared recovery memo Exhibit Ka 7. He found an empty cartridges at the spot, He took the same in police custody and prepared recovery memo, Exhibit Ka 8. On 24th May, 1976 Investigating Officer interrogated other witnesses and after completing investigation submitted, charge sheet Exhibit Ka. 9 against all the three named miscreants. But Mahendra Singh alias Lalian Singh died hence only Pahalwan Singh and appellant Surrendra Singh alias Chhotey were tried by the Sessions Judge for offence of murder. ( 6 ) FOR bringing home the guilt against Pahalwan Singh and appellant Surrendra Singh prosecution examined Prem Prakash Tewari, P. W. 1, Krishna Kinkar Singh P. W. 3, Ram Prasad P. W. 4, Bhagwant Singh, P. W. 5, and informant Mahendra Singh, P. W. 7, as eye witnesses of the case. ( 6 ) FOR bringing home the guilt against Pahalwan Singh and appellant Surrendra Singh prosecution examined Prem Prakash Tewari, P. W. 1, Krishna Kinkar Singh P. W. 3, Ram Prasad P. W. 4, Bhagwant Singh, P. W. 5, and informant Mahendra Singh, P. W. 7, as eye witnesses of the case. Prem Prakash, P. W. 1, narrated the time and place of incident He also said that he was returning on rickshaw after witnessing the cinema show. He them said that he was fired upon. But he did not disclose name of the miscreants. Krishna Kinkar Singh also disclosed the time and place of the incident. He too said that along with Prem Prakash he was returning on a rickshaw after witnessing cinema show. In the rickshaw behind his rickshaw Jagannath and Ram Prasad were seated and they were also returning from cinema. In the second rickshaw Mahendra Singh and Bhagwant Singh were seated and all of them were returning after witnessing the cinema show. He further narrated that he was fired from a line hitting the front wheel of his rickshaw. Then there was another fire. In the incident Prem Prakash also received injuries. On his alarm Pahalwan armed with pistol Lallan Singh alias Mahendra Singh and appellant Chhotey Singh alias Surrendra Singh armed with pistol emerged and fired at him. The shot fired by Pahalwan hit him below his right ribs. After shooting the miscreants retreated in the same lane. He lost vision of his right eye doe to injury. He admitted in his cross examination that he was being prosecuted for murder of Mahendra Singh alias Lallan Singh and in that case informant Mahendra, Jagannath, Bhagwan Singh are accused. That incident took place after the incident, in question. He was definite that there was electric light on the road. Ram Prasad, P. W. 4 narrated the incident and named the miscreants. He too supported the whole of the incident. In his cross examination he admitted that after 15 or 20 minutes of the incident police arrived at the scene of crime. Bhagwant Singh, P. W. 5, also deposed the occurrence and named the miscreants. But informant Mahendra Singh P. W. 7 narrated the incident without naming the miscreants. His version was that he could not see the assailants. In his cross examination he admitted that after 15 or 20 minutes of the incident police arrived at the scene of crime. Bhagwant Singh, P. W. 5, also deposed the occurrence and named the miscreants. But informant Mahendra Singh P. W. 7 narrated the incident without naming the miscreants. His version was that he could not see the assailants. Both Prem Prakash Tewari, P. W. 1, and Mahendra Singh; P. W. 7, were declared hostile and were cross examined by prosecution. In his cross examination by the prosecution Mohendra Singh admitted correctness of his written report But in the cross examination by the defence he again resiled. ( 7 ) DR. S. K. Gin, P. W. 3, provided the medical evidence of the case. He proved the injuries any injury reports. He disclosed that the duration of injuries could synchronise with the time of incident. Head Constable Ghanshyam Lal, P. W. 6, proved the chik report and entry of the General Diary. Sub Inspector Kasi Anwarul Aziz, P. W. 8, was examined as Investigation Officer of the case. He deposed the proceedings held by him and the papers prepared by him during investigation. ( 8 ) APPELLANT Surrendra Singh denied prosecution story and asserted that he has been falsly implicated. No evidence was adduced in defence. ( 9 ) IT is true that one of the injured, who according to prosecution story was silting in the rickshaw ahead of other rickshaws, turned hostile but he too did not deny the time and place of incident. It is equally ture that informant Mahendra Singh, P. W. 7, turned hostile. There is no doubt admission of Ram Kinkar that police came on the spot within 15 or 20 minutes but it need not be forgotten that in injured state this witness could not carry definite impression of time and so his solitary admission that police arrived at the scene of crime within 15 or 20 minutes cannot be sufficient to throw out the first Information Report or the prosecution story. There is sufficient evidence to establish that appellant Surendra Singh was one of the assailants who fired at the injured. It is, however, evident from the prosecution evidence that the spot fired by him did not cause any injury to any of the two injured. There is sufficient evidence to establish that appellant Surendra Singh was one of the assailants who fired at the injured. It is, however, evident from the prosecution evidence that the spot fired by him did not cause any injury to any of the two injured. It is then evident from the medical evidence that injuries of Krishna Kinkar were extensive and were even on vital parts. It is providential that despite being hit by the pellets on vital parts his vital organs remained on damaged. But considering the seat of his injuries and the shots fired the only possible inference is that the assilants intended to kill Krishna Kinkar. ( 10 ) HAVING heard the counsel of the parties and having perused the record I hold that offence of attempt of murder with common intention punishable under Section 307 read with 34 I. P. C. has been duly made out against appellant Surrendra Singh. ( 11 ) BUT the real question which requires determination in this appeal is of sentence. In the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 29th January, 1979 his age was given as 20 years. This was not suspected as underestimate by the Sessions Judge. It, therefore, suggests that at the time of offence appellant was slightly above 18 years of age. It does not appear from the record that after the incident appellant was involved in any other crime. Appellant has already been in jail for more than three months. More than 14 years have elapsed since the incident. It is logical to presume that appellant would have been married and would have be gotten children. Sending him to jail now is not likely to serve any useful purpose. Rather his detention in jail now can throw him back in most undesirable company in jail; It may make him a hardened criminal. Hence, following the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State. I am of the view that sentences already under gone shall serve the ends of justice. ( 12 ) IN result, I partly allow this appeal and reduce the sentence of appellant Surrendra Singh alies Chhotey to the period already undergone. He is on bail. His bail bonds arc cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. .