JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. - Syed Hasan alias Baboo Saheb has appealed against his conviction and sentence which was recorded by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1978 (State v. Syed Hasan Alias Baboo Saheb) under Section 307 I. P. C., P. S. Kotwali, District Allahabad. 2. Both Amar Nath (PW-1), the injured, and the appellant Syed Hasan Alias Baboo Saheb are residents of Garhi Sarai, P. S. Kotwali, Allahabad City. Prior to the occurrence of this case Amar Nath PW-1 had acted as an informer for the local police on some occasions. The appellant, Syed Hasan, was involved in some criminal cases and his impression was that he was involved as result of the information passed on by Amar Nath. This had caused enmity between the injured and the appellant. 3. In the early morning of 25. 3. 1979 Amar Nath. alongwith his wife Sanitchri, Nachchul, Achchoo and Nankoo, had planned to go to village Tharwai in order to celebrate the Holi festival. It was for this reason that during the night of 24th/25th March, 1978 Nankoo and Achchoo were massaging the horse of Amar Nath as the journey to Tharwai was to be taken in a Tanga. At about 2.45 a. m. when the horse was being massaged, Nachchul and Amar Nath were sitting nearby while Smt. Sanitchri was sitting inside the room. 4. The appellant, accompanied by two of his companions, came upon the house of Amar Nath and called him. Amar Nath, followed by Nachchul, Nankoo and Achchoo, came out of the door of his house in the lane. The appellant, Syed Hasan, armed with a pistol at that time, fired upon Amar Nath on being exhorted by his two companions. Amar Nath was hit by the shot and fell down near the drain. His wife had also come out well in time to see the occurrence. 5. Thereafter, the appellant and his two colleagues went away. As chance would have it, two constables, who were on beat duty, came upon the scene of occurrence. These two police constables were from police outpost Shahganj. Amar Nath was taken by these two constables and others in a Rickshaw to Motilal Nehru Hospital. At the hospital Amar Nath was advised to go to Medical College Hospital as his condition was precarious. These two police constables were from police outpost Shahganj. Amar Nath was taken by these two constables and others in a Rickshaw to Motilal Nehru Hospital. At the hospital Amar Nath was advised to go to Medical College Hospital as his condition was precarious. The two constables had then taken Amar Nath to Medical College Hospital where he was admitted. 6. After admitting Amar Nath in the Medical College Hospital, Nachchul went to P. S. Kotwali and lodged the F. I. R. (Ex. ka. 1). Routine investigation followed and after its conclusion, a charge sheet (Ex. ka 7) was submitted by the Investigating officer S. I. Radha Krishna Yadav. At the trial the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In all the prosecution examined 8 witnesses i. e. Amar Nath PW-l, constable Shri Krishna PW-2, Smt. Sanitchary PW- 3, Nachchul PW-4, Igbal alias Shalla PW-5, H. C. Sharafat All PW-6, Dr. Rajendra Dayal PW-7 and 1. 0. S. I. Radha Krishna PW-8 in the case. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. Learned Sessions judge accepted the evidence of the PW-8 and held that Syed Hasan was guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. consequently, Syed Hasan was sentenced to undergo six years R. I. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court, Syed Hasan has come in appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the Additional Government Advocate. 10. Constable Shri Krishna PW-2 has stated that eleven months back he, alongwith constable Fateh Narain, was on beat duty. While he alongwith constable Fateh Narain was passing through Gadhi Sarai, he heard a gun shot and rushed to the spot from where the shot was heard. He has claimed that he reached the house of Amar Nath and found him lying on the ground and two-three persons were standing near him. None has claimed that he had taken the injured, Amar Nath, to the Colvin, Hospital and from there he had taken Amar Nath to Medical College Hospital where he was admitted. 11. He has claimed that he reached the house of Amar Nath and found him lying on the ground and two-three persons were standing near him. None has claimed that he had taken the injured, Amar Nath, to the Colvin, Hospital and from there he had taken Amar Nath to Medical College Hospital where he was admitted. 11. Iqbal alias Bhalla PW-5 has stated that about one year back Amar Nath had received gun shot wound and in that connection the I. O. had come upon the house of Amar Nath and had taken several pieces of Tikli, two blood stained bricks, six pieces of blood stained bricks and had prepared recovery memo about the same in his presence. H. C. Sharafat Ali PW-6 has proved the F. I. R. Ex. ka. 6 and the G. D. entry Ex. ka. 3 and ka 4. 12. Dr. Rajendra Dayal PW-8, who was posted as a Medical Officer in Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad in March 1978, had examined Amar Nath on 25. 3. 78 at. 3.45. m. and found the following injuries upon his person. "Lacerated wound-1" x" x depth could not be ascertained over front of chest, adjacent to the medical and left clavicle. The blackening was present around the wound in an area of 2 Z' diameter. Fresh bleeding was there but there was no wound of exit. The injured was semi-conscious. In the opinion of Dr. Rajendra Dayal PW-7 the injury of Amar Nath was caused by some fire arm and the injury was kept under observation." S. I. Radha Krishna Yadav had deposed about the various acts which were performed by him during the course of investigation. 13. I have gone through the evidence of these witnesses. The fact that Amar Nath did receive the gun shot wound at about 2.45 a. m. outside his house in Mohalla Gadhi Sarai has not been disputed. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the evidence of the above witnesses. The defence of the appellant is that he was not responsible for the injury of Amar Nath and was involved in the case due to enmity. 14. The case of the prosecution regarding the main occurrence rests upon the evidence of Amar Nath PW-1, Smt. Sanitehri PW-3 and Nachchul PW-4. The defence of the appellant is that he was not responsible for the injury of Amar Nath and was involved in the case due to enmity. 14. The case of the prosecution regarding the main occurrence rests upon the evidence of Amar Nath PW-1, Smt. Sanitehri PW-3 and Nachchul PW-4. All these three witnesses have categorically stated that it was the appellant Syed Hasan who had fired the shot which resulted in the injury of Amar Nath on the night in question. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined from the side of the appellant. Having gone through their cross-examination the conclusion is irresistible that all these three witnesses have very successfully withstood the acid test of cross-examination. They have been consistent throughout their evidence. There are no material variations and contradictions in their evidence from which it could be inferred that their evidence was not reliable. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case out of enmity and he had no motive to cause injury to Amar Nath. The appellant had filed the copies of the judgment of A. C. J. M. Allahabad in Crime case No. 418 of 1976, copy of charge sheet of crime case No. 1169 of 1976 under Section 60 of the Excise Act, copy of the charge sheet of a Crime case under Section 25 of the Arms Act and copy of the charge sheet of the Crime no. 500 of 1976 under Section 25 Arms Act. It is significant to note that in all these cases Amar Nath is cited as prosecution witness and the appellant is shown as the accused. Thus there is overwhelming evidence produced by the appellant himself which shows that the appellant was involved in cases of P. S. Kotawali in which the injured Amar Math was cited as the witness. Thus the appellant can have a motive to cause the injury to Amar Nath. On the other hand Amar Nath had no such motive to falsely implicate the appellant in case some unknown person had fired upon him. The contention of the appellant's counsel was that Syed Hasan, had stopped tethering the. horse of Amar Nath upon his land, as a result of which relation between them had become strained. On the other hand Amar Nath had no such motive to falsely implicate the appellant in case some unknown person had fired upon him. The contention of the appellant's counsel was that Syed Hasan, had stopped tethering the. horse of Amar Nath upon his land, as a result of which relation between them had become strained. Even if the contention is accepted as true, it would not provide enough motive to Amar Nath to falsely implicate Syed Hasan in this case. 16. The place of occurrence is not disputed and is amply proved by the recovery of the blood-stained bricks from the place of occurrence. Further more it is not a case of the appellant that Amar Nath had sustained injury in question at some other place. It may also be mentioned here that Amar Nath will not gain anything by shifting the place of occurrence. 17. It was also contended from the side of the appellant that there was no light at the time of alleged occurrence in which Amar Nath and the witnesses could have recognised the assailant. The above contention has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the grounds that all the witnesses have stated that it was a moon lit night and that an electric bulb was on upon the stair case of Haroon Neta nearby and as such there was enough light in which the injured and the witnesses could have seen the person who had called him out of his house and had fired upon him. The fact that it was a moon lit night was not disputed before me. The appellant is known to all the witnesses from before as he lives in the same house in which Amar Nath resides. Even if the electric bulb was not on, the witnesses could have easily recognised the appellant by his voice and with the help of the moon light. 18. The mere fact that the source of light was not mentioned in the F. I. R. would not mean that there was no light at the time of occurrence with the help of which the witnesses were in a position to recognise the appellant. 19. Under these circumstances I agree with the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that it was the appellant, Syed Hasan, who had fired upon Amar Nath on the night in question. 19. Under these circumstances I agree with the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that it was the appellant, Syed Hasan, who had fired upon Amar Nath on the night in question. Amar Nath was hit upon the chest and the only inference is that the intention of the appellant was to kill Amar Nath. Thus the finding recorded by the learned sessions Judge that Syed Hasan was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. was correct and is confirmed. 20. Coming to the question of sentence I may point out that the occurrence took place about 14 years back. The appellant was arrested on 5. 4. 1976 and remained in jail up to 20.6.1979. After being released from jail, one leg of the appellant has been amputated. There is no evidence before us to show that after his conviction the appellant has been involved in any other criminal case. Nothing useful would be served if a man with only one leg and who has already spent more than 14 months in jail, is now sent to jail for an offence which was committed by him about 14 years back. In my opinion a sentence for the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- would meet ends of justice. 21. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I. P. C. is confirmed but the sentence is modified to this extent that the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5,000/. The fine shall be deposited in the trial court within three months from today. In case the fine is deposited in time, the amount so deposited shall be paid to the injured, Amar Nath or his legal heirs. In case the fine is not deposited within the time allowed, the appellant shall go one year's R. I. in default.