JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in sessions case No. 36/82 on 19.4.1983 convicting the accused under section 307 of the IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record of the case and re-appreciated the evidence on record. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence, in so far as the occurrence of incident is concerned, firing of the gun by the accused cannot be disputed and therefore, the finding of the learned Judge of guilt is proper. 3. However, the question which is agitated in the appeal is even if such incident has occurred, the offence made out is one under section 324 and not under section 307 as there is no intrinsic evidence on record corroborated by the medical evidence that the gun shot was fired at waist level and such firing obviously cannot be with an intention to kill or with intention to cause such bodily injury as will normally result in death. In view of such state of evidence, the contention is well founded, conviction under section 307 is not possible, the same is therefore, set aside. 4. In the result, the appeal partially succeeds and is allowed partly. The conviction under section 307 is set aside and instead accused is convicted under section 324 of the IPC. In view of the fact that the appeal is pending for last 17 years and the accused-appellant is on bail, the sentence is reduced to one already undergone by the accused during the pendency of trial and the appeal. With these observations, the appeal stands partly allowed. The bail bonds, if any, are cancelled.Appeal partly allowed. *******