O. P. PRADHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal u/s. 374 (2), Cr. P. C. has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sri Jag Mohan Paliwal, the then VII Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao delivered on 30-3- 1984 in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 1984, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s. 307, I. P. C. to undergo four years R. I. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY speaking the facts giving rise to this appeal are : that on 23-11-1982 there was an alterca tion between Ashok Kumar son of complainant Ram Khelawan and the accused Sukhbir Singh at about 6 p. m. Ashok Kumar had a betel shop and the accused had taken sweets and betels from that shop but did not pay the cost thereof, which resulted in the altercation between the two. It was, however, sub- sided by one Sappu Singh who was sitting nearby. On the same day at about 10 p. m. , accused Sukhbir Singh went to the house of the complainant and began to shower abuses from the Galiyara. The complainant Ram-Khelawan was in his room. He came out with a lantern whereupon accused Sukhbir Singh fired at him. Ram Khelawan raised a hue and cry and chased accused Sukhbir Singh and succeeded in apprehend ing him with the help of his sons and others who had also rushed to the place of occurrence on the report of fire-arm. A country-made pistol with a fired cartridge was seized from accused Sukhbir Singh who was held and made to sit at the door-way of Ram Khelawan. A written report was scribed by Gauri Shanker who is the complainants son and in the meantime Devi Shanker, another son of complainant fetched a Khadkhada and carried injured Ram Khelawan and accused Sukhbir Singh to the police station Kotwali, district Unnao and lodged the F. I. R. there at 12. 20 a. m. on 24-11-1982. The accused Sukhbir Singh was also handed over to the police together with the country-made pistol seized from him. A case u/s. 307, I. P. C. was registered at the police station on the basis of this F. I. R. and investigation followed. After completing the investigation and obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant for his prosecution u/s. 307, I. P. C. and Section 25, Arms Act. A case u/s. 307, I. P. C. was registered at the police station on the basis of this F. I. R. and investigation followed. After completing the investigation and obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant for his prosecution u/s. 307, I. P. C. and Section 25, Arms Act. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined in support of its case, Ram Khelawan P. W. 1, Ashok Kumar P. W. 2, Gauri Shanker P. W. 3 and Bal Krishna P. W. 4 as witnesses of fact while S. I. Ran Vijay Singh P. W. 5, Constable Moharrir Bhajan Lal P. W. 6 and Dr. B. N. Saxena P. W. 7 were examined as formal witnesses. The prosecution also exhibited the material docu ments and articles in the case. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded his false implica tion as a result of Partibandi in village, However, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on a scrutiny of the prosecution evidence and the material placed on record came to find that it was accused Sukhbir Singh who had fired at Ram Khelawan causing him fire-arm injuries and that accused Sukhbir Singh was also apprehended soon after the occurrence only at a short distance from the place of occurrence together with the country made pistol and handed over to the police thereafter together with the first information report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused u/s. 25, Arms Act but found the accused guilty u/s. 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo four years R. I. Feeling aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence, the convict Sukhbir Singh has preferred this appeal. State has not preferred appeal against the acquittal u/s. 25, Arms Act. ( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Government Advocate and have also gone through the material placed on record. ( 5 ) RAM Khelawan P. W. 1 is the complainant of the present case. He was injured during the occurrence as a result of firing at the hands of the appellant. ( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Government Advocate and have also gone through the material placed on record. ( 5 ) RAM Khelawan P. W. 1 is the complainant of the present case. He was injured during the occurrence as a result of firing at the hands of the appellant. He further stated that as soon as he came out of the door with a lantern, the accused Sukhbir Singh fired at him but he succeeded in apprehending him with the help of his sons and others who had rushed to the place of occurrence on the report of the fire-arm. The F. I. R. which was lodged at the police station soon after the occurrence corroborates the version of the com plainant Ram Khelawan P. W. 1. The medical evi dence given by Dr. B. N. Saxena P. W. 7 read with injury report Ext. Ka 9/1 further supports the version of the prosecution that Ram Khelawan received injuries at about 10 p. m. from a fire-arm. Dr. Saxena has clearly stated that the injuries found on the person of Ram Khelawan could not be self-suffered. Accused Sukhbir Singh was also apprehended on the spot with the country-made pistol from which he had fired at the complainant Ram Khelawan. He was also handed over to the police at the time F. I. R. was lodged at the police station and the country-made pistol seized from him was likewise made over to the police. The seizure memos prepared by the police support this version of the prosecution story. No dent could be caused during cross-examination of Ram Khelawan on material points of the prosecution case. His evidence appears to inspire confidence and there is no good reason to discredit him. ( 6 ) ASHOK Kumar P. W. 2 who is the son of the complainant Ram Khelawan deposed about the inci dent of altercation which took place at about 6 p. m. in the evening of 23-11-1982 and further stated that the accused Sukhbir Singh fired at his father as soon as he came out of the door after hearing filthy abuses being shouted by the accused soon before the occurrence. He also stated that his father succeeded in apprehend ing the accused at some distance with the help of others who had rushed to the place of occurrence. He also stated that his father succeeded in apprehend ing the accused at some distance with the help of others who had rushed to the place of occurrence. Likewise, he further deposed that the country-made pistol held by the accused was also seized at the time and place where the accused was apprehended. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to certain minor contradiction appearing in the evidence of Ram Khelawan and Ashok Kumar on the point of the burning of lantern. According to Ram Khelawan P. W. 1, the lantern was burning in his room but Ashok Kumar P. W. 2 has to say that the lantern had been extinguished at about quarter to ten. So far as this contradiction goes, it may be said to be a minor contradiction on the point of little importance. In any case, it does not affect the prosecution case, inasmuch as it is nobodys case that the assailant could not be recognised at the time and place of occurrence. Moreover, the accused appellant was apprehended immediately after the occurrence and the country- made pistol held by him was also seized from him by the complainant with the help of others who had reached to the place of occurrence. Even if it be assumed that there was no light of the lantern available at the time and place of occurrence, it may be pointed out that the light which was otherwise available at the time and place of occurrence for the accused appellant to fire at his victim would also be adequate to fix up the identity of the assailant by the victim and others who had reached the place of occurrence. The accused appellant lives in a nearby hamlet and was, therefore, known to all concerned from before. Therefore, this contradiction does not help the learned counsel for the appellant in any manner. ( 7 ) IT was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no mention in the F. I. R. about the incident of altercation which is said to have taken place in the evening preceding the occurrence As rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the written report was prepared in haste because the injured complainant had to be taken for medical aid and a report of the occurrence had also to be made at the police station. Therefore, if this incident of altercation did not find a mention in the F. I. R. it is of little importance and in any way, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this score alone. ( 8 ) GAURI Shanker P. W. 3 and Bal Krishna P. W. 4 have given evidence about the accused being apprehended by the complainant with the help of others and the country-made pistol being seized from him immediately after the occurrence. Both these witnesses came out after hearing the report of fire-arm. There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony on these points. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also drew my attention to some minor variations and contradic tions which were pointed out in the lower Court during the trial stage but were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for reasons recorded by him. I agree with the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and need not reiterate the grounds recorded in the judgment on this score. ( 10 ) THE defence plea of the accused appellant is of bare denial and false implication at the hands of village Pradhan with whom he had partibandi. There is no iota of evidence on record to give effect to this defence plea and the accused appellant has also not adduced any evidence, oral or documentary in sup port of his defence plea. Not only this, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material on record which could support to some extent this defence plea of the accused appellant. On the other hand, there is cogent and reliable evidence of Ram Khelawan P. W. 1 Ashok Kumar P. W. 2, Gauri Shanker P. W. 3 and Bal Krishna P. W. 4 to establish that accused appellant was apprehended immediately after the occurrence with a country-made pistol and the first two witnesses, namely, Ram Khelawan P. W. 1 and Ashok Kumar P. W. 2 have clearly depos ed that the accused appellant had fired at the com plainant causing him fire-arm injuries. The fire-arm injuries of the complainant were examined by Dr. B. N. Saxena P. W. 7 at 1. 05 a. m. on 24-11-1982 and they were found fresh at the time of examination and the doctor clearly opined that they had been caused by a fire-arm. The fire-arm injuries of the complainant were examined by Dr. B. N. Saxena P. W. 7 at 1. 05 a. m. on 24-11-1982 and they were found fresh at the time of examination and the doctor clearly opined that they had been caused by a fire-arm. ( 11 ) FROM what has been said above, it has to be found that it was the accused appellant who had fired at the complainant Ram Khelawan causing him fire arm injuries at about 10 p. m. on 23-11-1982 near the complainants door-way. ( 12 ) IT remains to be considered as to what offence has been committed on the facts found by the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously con tended that there was no intention on the part of appellant to kill the victim nor has any injury found on the person of victim Ram Khelawan shown to be grievous or dangerous to life. In this connection, it has been pointed out that Dr. B. N. Saxena P. W. 7 has not stated that any of the injuries suffered by victim Ram Khelawan was either grievous or dangerous to his life. A perusal of the medical examination report of Ram Khelawan also does not appear to support the conclu sion that any of the injuries found on the person of Ram Khelawan was either grievous or dangerous to life. In the circumstances, it has to be found as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no offence u/s. 307, I. P. C. could be made out and at best an offence u/s. 324, I. P. C. could be said to have been made out. Reliance in support of this contention may be placed on the cases reported in 1987 (24) ACC 516 (Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan) and 1980 (17) ACC 35 (Farooq v. State of U. P. ). Reliance in support of this contention may be placed on the cases reported in 1987 (24) ACC 516 (Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan) and 1980 (17) ACC 35 (Farooq v. State of U. P. ). In the facts, circumstances and the material available on record, the case does not seem to fall within Section 307, I. P. C. but falls u/s. 324, I. P. C. The appellant is, therefore, held liable for conviction u/s. 324, I. P. C. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant urged this Court to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant but on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, as also the injuries inflicted on the person of victim Ram Khelawan, I do not consider it to be a fit case for extending the said benefit to the appellant. ( 14 ) NOW remains the question of sentence. The appellant has been awarded a sentence of four years R. I. by the trial Court. Taking into consideration the facts, circumstances and the nature of injuries caused as also the span of time which has already elapsed since the date of occurrence, I consider that a sentence of one years R. I. will meet the ends of justice. ( 15 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed in this way that the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant u/s. 307, I. P. C. are set aside instead the appellant Sukhbir Singh is convicted u/s. 324, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo one years R. I. The appellant is already on bail. He will surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Appeal partly allowed. .