Judgment MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated June 16, 1980 by which the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 324, I. P. C. and Section 27, Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay fine of Rs. 300 under each count and in default to - undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and the sentences are to run concurrently. ( 2 ) AT the outset, learned counsel for the accused-appellant contends that he does not challenge the conviction of the accused-appellant on both the counts. The occurrence took place on April 20, 1978, the accused appellant was convicted on July 16, 1980, no useful purpose will be served in sending the accused-appellant to prison, he has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for about four and a half months and, relying upon Sadulsingh v. State of Rajasthan, and Maniram v. State of Rajasthan, requests that the accused appellant may be released on the sentence already undergone. ( 3 ) IN reply, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in the present case, the accused- appellant has repeatedly fired shots at the injured Hoshiar Singh on his vital parts. He does not deserve to be released on the sentence already undergone and he is also not entitled to get benefit under Section 360, Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the injured Hoshiar Singh, P. W. 3 and the eye-witnesses Tarasingh, P. W. 1 and Bhansingh, P. W. 2 are real brothers. In the beginning of his statement, Tara Singh, P. W. 1 has categorically stated on oath that the accused Gamdoor Singh is his real nephew. It is well proved from the statements of the injured Hoshiar Singh, P. W. 3 and the eye-witnesses Tara Singh, P. W. 1 and Bhansingh, P. W. 2 that there was some dispute in between the injured Hoshiar Singh and the accused Gamdoor Singh on some money. A Panchayat was convened on April 19, 1978, it got the matter settled and directed the injured Hoshiar Singh, P. W. 3 to make payment of Rs. 500/- to the accused Hoshiar Singh, he duly paid the same to the accused Gamdoor Singh and, thereafter, the Panchayat dispersed. A Panchayat was convened on April 19, 1978, it got the matter settled and directed the injured Hoshiar Singh, P. W. 3 to make payment of Rs. 500/- to the accused Hoshiar Singh, he duly paid the same to the accused Gamdoor Singh and, thereafter, the Panchayat dispersed. It is further proved from the statements of these eye-witnesses that the accused-appellant Gamdoor Singh and the co-accused Mukhtiyar Singh and Tillusingh collected near the field of Shambhusingh armed with firearms, when the injured Hoshiar singh passed through it, the accused Gamdoor Singh asked him to stop and proclaimed to get ready and started firing at him. It is further proved that Hoshiar Singh escaped the first shot and subsequent shots injured his face, chest, neck etc. On April 20, 1978, at 6 A. M. F. I. R. Ex. P/i was lodged by the injured Hoshiar Singh at the Police Station, Rawatsar (Sriganganagar ). Thereon, a case under section 307, I. P. C. and 27, Arms Act was registered against both the accused persons. Dr. J. P. Swami, P. W. 6 examined the injured Hoshiar Singh on April 20, 1978 at 9. 25 A. M. He found 15 injuries on his person and prepared the injury report Ex. P 19. The Radiologist Dr. J. M. Taneja, P. W. 5 took the X-ray plates Ex. P/3 to Ex. P/8 and prepared the X-ray report Ex. P/2. He has deposed that on the basis of the X-ray plates ex. P13 to P/8, he found shadows of multiple radiomettalic foreign bodies on his face, abdo men, chest and right hand. The investigating Officer Chaman Singh, P. W. 9 has deposed that the accused Gamdoor Singh gave information Ex. p /19 to him for the recovery of his licensed gun, in pursuance thereof he recovered the gun and the licence at his instance, he prepared the recovery memo Ex. P/20 and the recovered articles were duly sealed. The Investigating Officer, Budharam P. W. 7, prepared the site plan Ex. P/li and the site- plan inspection note, Ex. P/li-A and recovered the fired and misfired cartridges from the site and duly sealed them. The sealed fired and misfired cartridges, gun and the unused live cartridges were sent through Constable Wahid Khan P. W. 10. The report Ex. P/15 and P/16 of the State Forensic Science Laboratory and the report Ex. P/ 17 of the. P/li-A and recovered the fired and misfired cartridges from the site and duly sealed them. The sealed fired and misfired cartridges, gun and the unused live cartridges were sent through Constable Wahid Khan P. W. 10. The report Ex. P/15 and P/16 of the State Forensic Science Laboratory and the report Ex. P/ 17 of the. Serologist and Chemical Examiner, Government of India, Calcutta go to prove that the fired and misfired cartridges were shot from the gun of accused-appellant Gamdoor Singh. There is absolutely no good ground to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. The accused appellant Gamdoor Singh has simply stated in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that he has falsely been implicated in the case as the prosecution- witnesses wanted to snatch his agricultural land. It cannot, therefore, be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed any error in convicting the accused appellant under Section 324 I. P. C. and 27 Arms Act. The accused-appellant is neither entitled to be released on the sentence already undergone nor to the benefit under Section 360, Cr. P. C. He repeatedly fired shots at his uncle Hoshiar Singh P. W. 3 by his gun and he received as many as 15 injuries the accused- appellant participated in the Panchayat and accepted its decision by taking Rs. 500/- from the injured Hoshiar Singh. Despite this, he assembled along with the co-accused Mukhtiyar Singh and Tillushingh near the field of Sampuran Singh with fire-arms, waited there for the injured Hoshiar Singh and opened fire at his as soon as he appeared there. Under these facts and circumstances, he does not deserve any leniency. As a matter of fact, the State should have filed an appeal against the judgment acquitting him of the offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. If in such a case benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act is given, it may bring disrepute to the Act itself. The sentence of one and a half years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- under each count cannot be said to be excessive. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly stated in the judgment that both the sentences are to run concurrently. The facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are quite different and distinguishable. 300/- under each count cannot be said to be excessive. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly stated in the judgment that both the sentences are to run concurrently. The facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are quite different and distinguishable. In Maniram v. State of Rajasthan, (supra), simple injuries were inflicted with a sword. In Sadul Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) the accused fired with a gun and two injuries were found on the body of the injured. In both these cases, fires were not shot repeatedly and the injured and the accused were not related. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and the sentences are maintained. Appeal dismissed.