D. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THE present Criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31-1-1984, passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge. Unnao convicting the appellant under section 307, I. P. C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for a period of five years in connection with an incident which is alleged to be took place on 7-7-1983 at about 10. 30 p. m. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that on the date of the incident Chandrika Prasad was sleeping in front of his main door and Vishwa Nath was also sleeping nearby. It is further alleged that the accused started saying to Chandrika Prasad that his son Vishwa Nath is doing Mukhbari to the police. Vishwa Nath denied this fact but the accused fired country made pistol causing injuries on the Victim Vishwa Nath. Vishwa Nath was examined by Dr. G. P. Awasthi (P. W. 5) on 8-7-1983 at about 5 a. m. The Doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the injured person:1. Multiple fire-arm injuries in an area of 5. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. skin deep on right fore-arm lower end. 2. Multiple fire-arm injuries in an area of 18 cm. x 16 cm. skin deep presentation front of chest. 3. Multiple fire-arm injuries in area of 8 cm. x 6 cm. skin deep present on abdomen near umbellicus. 4. Fire-arm injury 1. 3 cm. x 1. 3 cm. skin deep on left wrist. ( 3 ) CHANDRIKA Prasad lodged the report Ext. Ka. 3 on 8-7-1983 at about 12. 10 p. m. On receipt of said complaint a case was registered against the accused. The investigation was entrusted to Shri Shyam Sunder Tripathi. S. I. who after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The prosecution in support of its case has examined six witnesses. Out of them Chandrika Prasad (P. W. 2 ). Vishwa Nath (P. W. 3) and P. W. 4 Raja Ram are the witnesses of fact. Raja Ram (P. W. 4) did not support the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile. Dr. G. P. Awasthi. (P. W. 5) an employee of District Hospital, Unnao had examined the injuries of Vishwa Nath on 8-7-1983 and prepared the injury report Ext. Ka. 4. Raja Ram (P. W. 4) did not support the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile. Dr. G. P. Awasthi. (P. W. 5) an employee of District Hospital, Unnao had examined the injuries of Vishwa Nath on 8-7-1983 and prepared the injury report Ext. Ka. 4. S. I. Shyam Sunder Tripathi (P. W. 6) had investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. On the other hand the accused had denied the prosecution case and stated that he bas been falsely inflicted in this case due to enmity. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had fired of Vishwa Nath With the intention to kill him. Hence, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. ( 4 ) THE appellant aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed the present appeal in this Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the Additional Government Advocate and perused the records. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel-for the appellant tries to challenge the statement of the eye Witnesses on minor discrepancies, but in my opinion the finding recorded by the Court below is correct one and the eye witness is reliable one. The P. W. 3 Vishwa Nath is the injured eye-Witness and therefore his presence on the spot cannot be doubted. Apart from this the statement of Vishwa Nath further find support from the statement of P. W. 2 Chandrika Prasad as well as from the medical evidence. The prosecution case is consistent and from the testimony of the eye-witnesses it cannot be said that they are not stating the correct facts. The learned Sessions Judge has already considered the testimony of eye-witnesses in detail and in my opinion the same does not require any interference. ( 6 ) LASTLY it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that even accepting the case of prosecution offence under section 307, I. P. C. is not made out. According to him the offence falls under section 324, I. P. C. only. The Doctor who has examined the injuries of Vishwa Nath did not say that injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to him the offence falls under section 324, I. P. C. only. The Doctor who has examined the injuries of Vishwa Nath did not say that injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Apart from this admittedly there is no repeatation of the firing and looking into facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion case under section 324, I. P. C. only is made out specially when the medical report is silent about the seriousness of the injuries. In these circumstances the order of trial judge is modified and the appellant is held guilt under section 324, I. P. C. only. ( 7 ) IT is submitted by the appellants Counsel that the appellant is served out a sentence or about 5 to 6 months and he is on bail since 1984. In these circumstances according to him it will not be proper to send him to jail again. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion end of justice will meet if appellant is sentenced to already undergone and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is convicted under section 324, I. P. C. and sentence to already undergone and a find of Rs. 500/ -. The fine will be deposited by the appellant within three months. The conviction under section 307, I. P. C. is set aside. In case of default of deposit of fine. the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. Appeal allowed partly. .