JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th October, 1990, passed by Sessions Judge, Bhind, whereby the appellant stands convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The charge found established against the appellant is that on 3rd November, 1988, in the fields of village Aklone, district Bhind, he attempted to kill Reepudamansingh and Rajbahadur by firing a shot with a 12 bore gun towards them. Instead of Reepudamansingh on whom, the shot was aimed, the pellets struck-Rajbahadur, on his scapular region as well as glutal region causing two injuries of 1/2 Cm. x 1/2 Cm. x skin deep. The quarrel arose out of a simple matter of putting of certain bags of grain by the accused on a meiud belonging to Reepudamansingh. Since Reepudamansingh objected to it, there was exchange of abuses between him and the accused, the accused brought out gun from his house and fired a shot towards Reepudamansingh resulting in the aforesaid consequences. 3. The trial Court has relied upon the evidence of Reepudamansingh (PW 6), his sister, Bathaka Bai (PW 5), and Sudansingh alias Sudanaba (PW 4). Reepudamansingh was the main aim of the fire but it struck Rajbahadursingh (PW 2) because he came in between. The statement of Rajbahadursingh (PW 2) is that he was suddenly struck with fire-arm and he could not see who fired it. Reepudamansingh (PW 6) has narrated that although the shot was aimed at him, Rajbahadursingh suddenly came in between, and was struck. Bathaka Bai (PW 5) and Sudansingh (PW 4) have supported this aspect of the matter. They say that this accused fired the shot. 4. The medical evidence is that the shot must have been fired from more than 12 feet away. 5. The accused could not be found till 18th of November, 1988, although the incident occurred on 3rd of November, 1988, and he was named in the first information report which was given by Reepudamansingh. Although, he named the accused in the first information report, but he became hostile to the prosecution. A number of other eye witnesses so projected, and were produced in evidence, but became hostile to the prosecution case and went back on their statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, so their evidence was ignored by the trial Court. 6. A number of other eye witnesses so projected, and were produced in evidence, but became hostile to the prosecution case and went back on their statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, so their evidence was ignored by the trial Court. 6. The contention .of the learned counsel for the appellant is that assuming that the accused fired towards Reepudamansingh, the distance was too much and fired shot could not cause any deep injury, and only marginal injuries were caused which were skin deep the distance must have been so much, for any fatal Injury. 7. The distance of gun shot given by the three eye witnesses; namely; Reepudamansingh (PW 6), Bathaka Bai (PW 5) and Sudansingh (PW 4) are variant; varying from 50 feet to 100 feet. 8. Considering all these aspects, the question, whether there was intention to kill, has to be construed in the light of the physical fact that even if there was intention to kill then there should be some reasonable distance to achieve that object. If the distance of fired shot was too much, then the object to kill could not bf achieved. So, it will go out of pale of attempt to murder. It is, however, a voluntary fire. 9. The evidence on the record, including the first information report, and the material evidence, is sufficient to reach a definite conclusion that this accused fired the shot towards Reepudamansingh (PW 6) but since Rajbahadur came in between suddenly, he was struck. It is not sure whether two shots were fired. So it has to be assumed that one must have been fired. So the pellets had spread, striking the scapular region and gluteal region on the person of Rajbahadur. This gun shot was so far from object, that it could not prove fatal. Even then, the voluntary causing of injury by a fire-arm remains the charge proved against the appellant/accused. 10. The learned counsel for the State do not have much to say against this conclusion. 11. In view of above discussion, the conviction of the accused is changed to one under section 324 IPC from section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. 10. The learned counsel for the State do not have much to say against this conclusion. 11. In view of above discussion, the conviction of the accused is changed to one under section 324 IPC from section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. As regards sentence, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the accused has already been in jail for ninety days the plea of the counsel for the appellant is that this should be sufficient punishment to him, and further the incident occurred in the year 1986, therefore, about nine years have passed. 13. Considering all the aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that an additional punishment of fine should be levied on the appellant apart from the imprisonment for the period of which he remained in custody. Therefore, sentence of the appellant is changed as under: (i) the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period for which he was already in custody; (ii) a fine of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed; in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months further; (iii) time granted to make, the payment of fine is two months from today; (iv) out of the tine so recovered i.e., from. Rs. 5,000/- a sum of Rs. 2,000/- shall be payable to the injured, Rajbahadur. 14. The trial Court shall see to it that the above modification which is now made by this Court is complied with. Rajbahadur, the injured be also intimated accordingly. Modified warrant of sentence with copy of judgment be sent to trial Court.