VIRENDRA SARAN, J. Moti Lal son of Bhoga has filed this appeal against the judgment and order, dated 19-7-1983 of Sri A. K. Agarwal, Vlth Addl. Sessions Judge, Unnao, in S. T. No. 85 of 1982 convicting the appellant under Section 307 I. P. C. and sentencing him to 5 years R. I. 2. The case of the prosecution case is that on 7th November 1980 at 9. 00 P. M. (day of Deepawali) Brij Lal P. W. 2 was returning after purchasing sweets and when he reached near the house of Moti Lal, he found Amar Nath indulging in abuses. Brij Lal asked him not to do so. Meanwhile, Moti Lal came out of his house and saying that Brij Lal be killed fired a shot resulting injuries to Brij Lal. 3. Brij Lal got a report (Ext. Ka-2) written and lodged the same at the police station at 10 P. M. 4. Brij Lal was medically examined by Dr. A. Akram on the same day and he found the following injuries on his person: (i) Multiple gun shot wound 37 in number in an area of 6" x 4" in front of the right side of the chest 3- 1/2 below the color bone. Each wound was measured 3/10" x 3/10". (ii) Multiple gun shot wound of entry 27 in number on the right side of chest 3-1/2" below the right nipple. Each wound was 3/10" x 3/10". (iii) Multiple gun shot wounds of entry 2 in number each 2/10" x 2/10" on the inner side of the right upper arm. 5. The margins of all the wounds were inverted. There was no blackening or charring. All the injuries had been caused by fire-arm. Injury No. 1 and 2 were kept under observa tion. Injury No. 3 was skin deep and according to the doctor the injury was simple in nature. 6. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 7. At the trial the appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Brij Lal P. W 2 Puttan P. W. 3 and Maiku P. W. 5 as eye- witnesses of the incident. Dr. A. Akram P. W. 1 was examined to prove the injury report. 7. At the trial the appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Brij Lal P. W 2 Puttan P. W. 3 and Maiku P. W. 5 as eye- witnesses of the incident. Dr. A. Akram P. W. 1 was examined to prove the injury report. Ram Autar Singh Yadav, S. I. P. W 4 was examined to prove the various steps taken by him during investigation. Out of these witnesses, Maiku P. W. 5 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 9. After careful consideration, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the learned State Counsel. 11. So far as the prosecution case is concerned, it stands established by the evidence of Brij Lal P. W. 2 who received numerous gun shot injuries. The evidence of Puttan P. W 3 also goes to corroborate the evidence of Brij Lal P. W 2 Medical evidence on, the record also corroborate the prosecution case. 12. I have gone through the entire evidence and the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the same. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant and I am in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the sentence is too severe and the incident took place as for as back in the year 1980 i. e. 14 years ago. 14. Considering the entire evidence and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will meet if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to one year R. I. 15. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. is upheld but his sentence is reduced from 5 years R. I. to 1 year R. I. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to serve out the sentence as modified in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed. .