JUDGMENT 1. - The prosecution case is that on 26.10.1982 round about 8 O'clock when Kanhaiya Lal was sitting along with Lalu in the verandah of his house, Ganga Rain, Heerji, Pithia, Dhula and Bheema reached to his house and started throwing stones. Heerji and Dhula were carrying lathies whereas Ganga Ram was having gun with him. Ganga Ram fired the gun which resulted in injury to his right leg. On the report being made by Kanhaiya Lal, the police filed challan against the 5 accused persons. Kanhaiya Lal was examined by PW 2 Dr. Kailash Chand and PW 3 Dr. Kundan Lal and their reports are Exhibits P/7 and P/8. Ex. P/7 injury report shows that Kanhaiya Lal received the following injuries : "A penetrating wound of 1/2cm x 2" size on right thigh anterolateral side 2" above the knee joint. The entrance of the wound is of about 1/2cm diameter, round inverted margin + depth towards front of knee-joint. Bleeding is there and r/o sustaining gun-shot injury but no F.B. could be felt superficially." 2. According to Dr. Kailash Chand, injury is simple in nature. Ex. P/8 is X-ray report prepared by PW 3 Kundan Lal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted all the accused persons except the accused-appellant who was convicted under section 307 IPC and imposed punishment for R.I. of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. in default of payment to undergo further R.I. for 1 year. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the evidence as led before the Court does not make out a case under section 307 IPC and at best, it is a case falling under section 324 IPC. 4. Having considered the nature of the injuries and the evidence of Kanhaiya Lal, I am of the view that the offence at best is made out under section 324 IPC. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the incidence is of the year 1982 and the conviction is of 1984 and after 15 years, it would not be appropriate to sent back the accused-appellant to jail. I have found from the record that the accused was behind bars for 61 days. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the incidence is of the year 1982 and the conviction is of 1984 and after 15 years, it would not be appropriate to sent back the accused-appellant to jail. I have found from the record that the accused was behind bars for 61 days. He was on bail right from the year 1984 and the fact that the dispute was in the family between two brothers, it would be appropriate if the complainant is compensated with money and the accused is convicted for the period of sentence already undergone. That will serve the ends of justice. 5. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under section 3071PC is set aside. Instead thereof, the offence is found proved under section 324 IPC and the accused-appellant is convicted under the said offence for the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 7,000/- which shall be deposited in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur within a period of 2 months. The amount shall be paid to the complainant-Kanhaiya Lal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur shall intimate the fact of deposit of amount of fine and Kanhaiya Lars entitlement for receipt of same by giving a notice. In default to deposit the amount as directed, the accused-appellant Ganga Ram shall undergo a sentence of 1 year's R.I.Appeal partly allowed. *******