JUDGMENT H.C. Mital, J. - Bhopp Singh has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 326, I.P.C. to three years R.I., passed by Sri J.B. Singh, the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Mirzapur on 22.3.1978. The other co-accused, namely Shailendra Kumar alias Thakur Dadu and Lola Kol were acquitted. The complainant Ram Pratap on being aggrieved, had preferred criminal revision No. 1183 of 1978 praying that the acquittal of Bhoop Singh under Section 307, I.P.C. be set aside and he be convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and in the alternative the sentence awarded under Section 326, I.P.C. be suitably enhanced. The other criminal revision No. 1184 of 1978 had been preferred by Ram Pratap against the acquittal of co-accused Shailendra Kumar Singh and Lola Kol. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Bhoop Singh - appellant and co-accused Shailendra Kumar Singh alias Thakur Dadu were pattidars, while Lola Kol accused No. 3 was Karinda of Bhoop Singh. The house of the complainant Ram Pratap (P.W. 1) is situated at a little distance in the north of his shop in village Sanjari. He had enclosed his open land by fixing stone slabes. The accused intended to have passage from over that land. Hence a little before 10.00 a.m. on 20.8.76 Boop Singh and Shailendra Singh riding over an elephant went near the house of the complainant and got some stone-slabs removed by the elephant. Ramesh Kumar nephew of Ram Pratap informed the latter about the removal of the stone-slabs. Thereupon Ram Pratap arrived there and protested why the stone-slabes were removed which led to some verbal altercation and thereupon all the three accused left and returned after some time. Bhoop Singh was armed with a gun and at the exhortation of Shailendra Kumar and Lola Kol, Bhoop Singh fired a shot at Ram Pratap, as a result of which he received the following injuries as noted by P.W. 6 Dr. Abdul Halim on 21.8.76 at 11.30 a.m. 1. Lacerated wound cm x cm x under observation depth on outer aspect of middle phalanx of right index finger just above the terminal interphalangia joints. No signing not tatooing and no blackening. 2. Abdul Halim on 21.8.76 at 11.30 a.m. 1. Lacerated wound cm x cm x under observation depth on outer aspect of middle phalanx of right index finger just above the terminal interphalangia joints. No signing not tatooing and no blackening. 2. Lacerated punctured wound cm x cm on iner side of middle phalanx of right index finger just opposite injury No. 1 depth through and through to injury No. 1 as probe passes out of it. The injury is 1 cm above terminal interphalangia joints. No singeing no tattooing and no blackening. 3. Punctured and lacerated wound 1 cm x cm on outer palmer surface of right middle finger just below middle interphalangial joints. Depth is 2 cm and passing through injury No. 4 given below. 4. Lacerated and punctured wound 1 cm x 1 cm x depth 2 cm as passing the probe into injury No. 3 and out on opposite side injury No. 3 at inner side of middle finger (3) right interphalangial joints. No singeing no tattooing and no blackening. 5. Lacerated and punctured wound 1 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm deep passing through over of injury No. 6 below wound, traumatic swelling around on the middle interphalangial joint of 4th right finger at base of middle phalanx. No singeing no tattooing and no blackening. 6. Lacerated punctured wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm (finger breadty) on base of 4th ring finger middle phalanx on inner aspect opposite the injury No. 5 depth through and through injury No.4 traumatic swelling of whole bone underneath fracture of crepetus present. No singeing no tattooing and blackening. 7. Lacerated wound cm x cm on base of distal phalanx of right 5th finger on dorsal aspect just below distal interphalangial joint. 3. On X-ray examination Dr. Abdul Halim also found fracture in injuries Nos. 5 and 6 and thus, grievous injuries were caused. F.I.R. (Ex. Ka 2) of the occurrence was lodged on the same day at P.S. Halia district Mirzapur at a distance of six miles at 1.30 p.m. on the basis of which the case was registered and after investigation the accused were charge-sheeted. Abdul Halim also found fracture in injuries Nos. 5 and 6 and thus, grievous injuries were caused. F.I.R. (Ex. Ka 2) of the occurrence was lodged on the same day at P.S. Halia district Mirzapur at a distance of six miles at 1.30 p.m. on the basis of which the case was registered and after investigation the accused were charge-sheeted. At the trial accused pleaded not guilty and prosecution examined in all eight witnesses, of whom P.W. 1 Ram Pratap is the complainant and the injured, P.W. 2 Devi Prasad and P.W. 4 Sheo Shanker are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and they corroborated the prosecution case. P.W.. 6 Dr.Abdul Halim proved the injures as noted above and the remaining are formal witnesses. 4. In defence the appellant and other co-accused did not adduce any evidence and their case was of total denial and alleged to have been falsely implicated on account of the enmity. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. was not made out, but only an offence under Section 326, I.P.C. was made out against Bhoop Singh alone and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced Bhoop Singh under' Section 326 I.P.C. to three years rigorous imprisonment and acquitted two other co-accused.. 5. In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant Bhoop Singh has taken us through the evidence on record to make out that even an offence under Section 326 I.P.C. was not substantiated, however, we do not find any force in this contention as in view of the testimony of P.W. 1 Ram Pratap injured and two other eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Devi Prasad and P.W. 4 Sheo Shanker and the medical evidence on record it cannot be doubted that Bhoop Singh' had caused the fire-arm injuries to Ram Pratap. Injuries Nos. 5 and 6 turned out to be grievous and, therefore, an offence under Section 326, I.P.C. has been clearly made out. 6. Injuries Nos. 5 and 6 turned out to be grievous and, therefore, an offence under Section 326, I.P.C. has been clearly made out. 6. On behalf of the revisionist it was urged that gun shot was fired without any immediate provocation and though the injuries were only caused on non-vital part of the body, but still the offence fell under Section 307, I.P.C. We, however, do not find any force in this contention, as from the circumstances of the case it is clear that verbal altercation had taken place and thereafter a shot was fired and the fact that only non-vital part of the body, particularly the hands had received injuries, clearly indicate that the appellant Bhoop Singh could have no intention to cause the death of Ram Pratap. We, therefore, maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 326, I.P.C. We also do not find any force in the contention on behalf of the revisionist that the two other accused Shailendra Kumar Singh and Lola Kol have been wrongly acquitted and prima facie they had not taken any active part in causing the injuries to Ram Pratap. 7. As regards the sentence the occurrence had taken place on 20th August, 1976, i.e. more than fourteen years back and, therefore, we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Bhoop Singh that it would not be in the fitness of things to ask appellant Bhoop Singh to undergo the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would meet by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and further imposing a sentence of fine of Rs. 4,000/- to which learned counsel for the appellant had no objection. Prima facie there is no force in the revision for enhancement of the sentence also. 8. The conclusion, therefore, is that the conviction of the appellant Bhoop Singh under Section 326 I.P.C. is maintained, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- to be paid within one month and in default one year rigorous imprisonment. If the fine is paid and realized, then a sum of Rs. 3,000/- be paid to the complainant Ram Pratap as compensation for the injuries received, by him. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Criminal Revisions Nos. 1183 of 1978 and 1184 of 1978 are hereby dismissed.