A. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 1987 passed by the III Addi. Sessions Judge of Bhind in ST No. 20/86 whereby the appellant was convicted u/sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant Ramawatar was further convicted u/sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The learned trial Court directed that the two sentences of life imprisonment shall run consecutively. The appellant was further convicted u/sec. 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to three years R. I. Again a conviction was recorded against the appellant u/sec. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R. I. for five years. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 29th April, 1985 at about 4 P. M. in village Katha, P. S. Lahar, District Bhind, the reporter Haridas who is the relation of deceased Smt. Suveda lodged the report at 8 P. M. the same day with the allegation that he was looking after the crops in Khalihan. His son Indal (P. W. 14) came running and informed him that appellant Ramawatar had fired at Smt. Suveda and she was killed. He also informed that Ramawatar had given a fire and blow at Bhareshah, the son of Smt. Suveda. The reporter reached the spot and found that Suveda was lying dead and there was a firearm injury on the left hand thumb of Bhareshah. Bhareshah was the cousin of the reporter and the deceased Suveda was his aunt. On the spot, Bhareshah disclosed that he was talking with his mother regarding participation in the marriage ceremony of his cousin. The lady was not ready to go to attend the marriage and they were convincing her that it was necessary to participate in the marriage. In the meantime, appellant Ramavatar came armed with a Katta and he scolded Bhareshah as to why he was quarrelling with the mother whereupon Bhareshah grappled with Ramawatar. Then it is alleged that Ramawatar went to his house and after some time he came on spot with a single barrel gun and fired two shots on Bhareshah. One shot accidentally hit Smt. Suveda who died on the spot. The second shot, as alleged, caused injury on Bhareshah. Then it is alleged that Ramawatar went to his house and after some time he came on spot with a single barrel gun and fired two shots on Bhareshah. One shot accidentally hit Smt. Suveda who died on the spot. The second shot, as alleged, caused injury on Bhareshah. Bhareshah rushed to the house to take shelter, thereupon witnesses arrived on the scene and Ramawatar managed to escape. ( 3 ) ONE Kadore is also said to have accompanied Bhareshah at the earlier occasion when he had come to intervene in the talks between Bhareshah and his mother. ( 4 ) AFTER the report was lodged a case for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the I. P. C was registered against the appellant and the investigation started. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, P. W. 14 Ramsewa and other persons of the village were present on the spot when the said occurrence took place. The Investigation Officer reached the spot the same day after lodging of the F. I. R: at 8 p. m. He reached the village at 9. 30 p. m. statements of the witnesses Bhareshah and others were recorded. The search for appellant Ramawatar was made. The appellant had absconded. He was arrested on 4. 5. 1985 and his statement Ex. P. 26 was recorded by the Investigating officer. Statements of the witnesses like Kusam, Poola, Ramkatori, Haridas and Indal were also recorded. The Investigating Officer got the site plan prepared. The inquest report of the dead-body of Smt. Suveda was also prepared and the dyad-body was sent for post-mortem. The post-mortem was conducted next day i. e. 30. 4. 1985 at 11. 45 A. M. by Dr. Vidyanath (P. W. 10 ). Bhareshah was also medically examined on 30. 4. 1985 by the same doctor and injury report was prepared and proved on record. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead-body of Smt. Suveda vide post-mortem report Ex. P. 13: - (1) Lacerated wound 9 x 41/2 x 3 extending from (Rt) Illiac fossa upto upper 1/2 of (Rt.) thigh lateral side. Intestines were coming out of Abdominal Cavity resulting fracture of (Rt.) Pelvic Bone, Hip Joint and upper end of femur. The surrounding skin is scorched and tattooed. The following injuries were found on the person of Bhareshah wide injury report Ex. Intestines were coming out of Abdominal Cavity resulting fracture of (Rt.) Pelvic Bone, Hip Joint and upper end of femur. The surrounding skin is scorched and tattooed. The following injuries were found on the person of Bhareshah wide injury report Ex. P. 16 : - (1) Lacerated wound 1 1/2 x 1/2 on (Rt.) little finger dorsally distal phalenge clotted blood present. The surrounding skin is scorched and tattooed. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in Court. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) THE prosecution, in support of its case examined as many as 20 witnesses. The appellant had denied the charge and in offence examined D. W. 1 Gopiram Sharma, according to whom the injured Bhareshah had quarrelled with an outsider and that outsider had fired his Katta causing the death of Smt. Suveda and injuries to Bhareshah. ( 7 ) THE learned Addi. Sessions Judge believed the statement of Bhareshah and Ramsewa, duly supported by medical evidence on record. The recovery of gun and cartridges were also believed by the learned Trial Court and, accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the present appeal has been preferred. ( 8 ) WE have heard Shri B. Raj Sharma learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M. K. Jam, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the State, and examined the record. ( 9 ) AFTER examining the testimony of P. W. 16 Bhareshah it comes out that Bhareshah, according to the prosecution version, was convincing his mother to participate in the marriage ceremony of his cousin. She was refusing to go in the marriage. At that time, appellant Ramawatar arrived on the scene and scolded Bhareshah as to why he was harassing his mother. Bhareshah got outraged and grappled with Ramawatar. Ramawatar lost his self-control on account of the behaviour of Bhareshah and threatened him to dire consequences saying as to why he was exchanging the word a man of Scheduled Caste. According to his own version, Ramawatar went his house, took out a gun and fired two shots. He further said that Ramawatar earlier had come with Kadore on the same day and requested him to provide liquor. According to his own version, Ramawatar went his house, took out a gun and fired two shots. He further said that Ramawatar earlier had come with Kadore on the same day and requested him to provide liquor. When Bhareshah refused, Ramawatar got the liquor purchased through Kadore and consumed at the door of Bhareshah itself. According to his own admission, Ramawatar had earlier no intention to intervene in the matter between the mother and the son at the time when he reached there. He simply demanded some liquor from Bhareshah, who appears to be dealing in liquor in the village. Bhareshah further admitted that after consuming liquor at his own door this incident took place which indicates that Ramawatar was in intoxicated state of mind at the time of incident and in that situation he intervened in the talks between the deceased Suveda and her son Bhareshah. ( 10 ) AGAIN P. W. 14 Ramsewa, who came to support the prosecution case, admitted that at the first instance Ramawatar had come and advised Bhareshah only not to quarrel with his mother otherwise he will shoot him. In the cross-examination Ramsewa admitted that he had also reached to intervene in the talks between Smt. Suveda and Bhareshah when Ramawatar reached. According to this witness one Mansingh had informed him that Bhareshah and his mother were quarrelling and only then he went to intervene and soon thereafter, Ramawatar had arrived hearing about the quarrel between the mother and the son. This witness admitted in para 8 of his cross-examination that Ramawatar had earlier advised Bhareshah not to quarrel with the mother, whereupon, Bhareshah hurled abuses at Ramawatar as to who was he to intervene in others dispute. Ramawatar had told Bhareshah that if he will harass his mother he will shoot. Earlier, as admitted by Bhareshah, Ramawatar was in intoxicating state of mind and on this sudden quarrel when Bhareshah challenged Ramawatar, he had fired two shots at Bhareshah. One of the shots missed and hit Smt. Suveda who died on the spot and the other shot caused minor injury on the left hand thumb of Bhareshah. ( 11 ) AFTER examining the evidence and circumstances of the case we find that it was a sudden quarrel. Appellant had no pre-meditation either to commit murder of Smt. Suveda or to make attempt on the life of Bhareshah. ( 11 ) AFTER examining the evidence and circumstances of the case we find that it was a sudden quarrel. Appellant had no pre-meditation either to commit murder of Smt. Suveda or to make attempt on the life of Bhareshah. In the circumstances, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that Ramawatar arrived at the scene of the occurrence, demanded liquor from Bhareshah and his refusal, he got the liquor from another house through Kadore and consumed liquor at the door of Bhareshah itself. Obviously, appellant Ramawatar, at that time, was in intoxicated condition and when Bhareshah challenged him not to intervene in the quarrel between mother and the son, Ramawatar got outraged and went to his house, took out a gun and fired two shots, as has come in the statement of Bhareshah itself. In these circumstances we find that it was not a case of premediation of intention either to commit murder of Suveda or to cause any injury to Bhareshah making attempt on his life. It was simply a case of sudden quarrel. When appellant Ramawatar was armed with a gun and was under intoxication of country-made liquor, he being outraged on the abuses being hurled upon him and challenge being made by Bhareshah, fired his gun. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, we find that the offence is made out, from the evidence on record, only under Section 304 (I) of the Indian Penal Code so far as causing death of Suveda is concerned. Nature of ante-mortem injuries, as evidence from the postmortem report, indicated that it was gun shot injury which was fired at Bhareshah, but it hit Smt. Suveda who was sitting on the ground. Angle from which the shot was caused on the left side of the stomach indicated that it was not indicative to commit the murder of the lady Suveda who was sitting on the ground and Bhareshah himself admitted that the first shot made at him missed, causing injury to his mother. As such it could not be a case of murder as it was a sudden quarrel. Therefore, under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the I. P. C a charge under Section 304 (1) I. P. C. is made out against the appellant for causing death of Smt. Suveda. As such it could not be a case of murder as it was a sudden quarrel. Therefore, under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the I. P. C a charge under Section 304 (1) I. P. C. is made out against the appellant for causing death of Smt. Suveda. ( 13 ) SO far as the offence under Section 307 of the I. P. C is concerned, against the appellant, the shot fired by the appellant caused a minor injury on non-vital part of the body of Bhareshah and, therefore, no doubt, the shot was fired at Bhareshah causing him injury on non-vital part, punishment for seven years R. I. u/sec. 307 of the I. P. C was sufficient. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge, awarding imprisonment for life u/sec. 307 of the I. P. C is not justified on record. ( 14 ) WE find that the learned Addi. Sessions Judge has awarded imprisonment for life u/sec. 302 of the I. P. C. and also imprisonment for life u/sec. 307 of the I. P. C and directed the two life imprisonments to run consecutively. These sentences of imprisonment for life are not justified either u/sec. 302, I. P. C or u/sec. 307, I. P. C The charge made out was only under Section 304 (I) of the I. P. C and u/sec. 307 of the I. P. C and punishment for seven years R. I. in both the Sections is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. These sentences had to run concurrently. The Trial Court, in its zeal, went to this extent to direct that the two sentences of imprisonment for life to run consecutively which is against the provisions of law and is not at all justified. In any case, the consecutive sentence for imprisonment for life is neither possible nor could be conceived. Therefore, we depricate the finding recorded by the Trial Court and directions given for consecutive sentences in respect of imprisonment for life. ( 15 ) THE recovery of gun for which the appellant had no licence and the recovery of empty and live cartridges also proved. Therefore, conviction u/secs. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are upheld. The sentences awarded for three years R. I. u/sec. 25 of the Arms Act and for five years R. I. u/sec. 27 of the Arms Act are also justified and are upheld. Therefore, conviction u/secs. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are upheld. The sentences awarded for three years R. I. u/sec. 25 of the Arms Act and for five years R. I. u/sec. 27 of the Arms Act are also justified and are upheld. ( 16 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the appellant that he served for more than 8 years in jail and, accordingly, the sentence could be awarded u/sec. 304 (1) of the I. P. C not more than 7 years and as such also under Section 307 of the I. P. C sentence of 7 years R. I. is proper. The appellant is entitled to be released at this stage. As such, we hold that the sentences of 7 years R. I. u/sec. 304 (1) of the I. P. C and 7 years u/sec. 307 of the I. P. C were sufficient in the circumstances of the case sentences u/secs. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act have already been served by the appellant and, therefore, since the appellant has been in jail for more than 8 years, he may be released after having served the sentences for the period already undergone. ( 17 ) WE allow the appeal in part. We direct that the appellant, as already held earlier, has already served the sentences u/sec. 304 (I) of the I. P. C and u/sec. 307 of the I. P. C as also under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, he is entitled to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The conviction u/sec. 302 of the I. P. C is set aside. The sentences are modified to that extent. We accordingly, direct that the appellant shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed partly. .