JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.9.1982 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, convicting the first and second appellants- Sohan Singh and Lakha Singh for the offence under section 307 IPC and sentencing each of them to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.I. Third appellant-Amar Singh has been convicted for the offence under section 307/109 IPC and sentenced to one and half years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. One hundred and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month' R.I. 2. The prosecution case is that on 28.11.1979, Jeet Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station, Anoopgarh, stating inter Alia that on 27.11.1979 in the night at about 10.00 p.m., he along with his nephew-Jaswant Singh had gone to the field to look after the crop. At about 10.30 p.m., when they reached near the water course, they found that it was overflowing. When they proceeded about 10-15 steps from the outlet, they saw five persons standing there. On their asking as to who they were, accused Amar Singh shouted that enemies have come. He also exhorted Sohan Singh to fire the gun. Sohan Singh, who was armed with a twelve bore gun, fired at Jeet Singh. The pellets hit his right thigh. Thereafter, accused-Lakha Singh also fired, which hit on his right leg from the back side. The informant also stated that pipe lines were installed in the Canal to illegally fetch the water from the Canal. On this information, police registered a case for the offences under sections 379 & 307 IPC and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants and two others for the aforesaid offences. They were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. During trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and produced certain documents. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 3. It is contended by Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that entire prosecution case is false and fabricated, being full of improbabilities and contradictions. They were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. During trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and produced certain documents. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 3. It is contended by Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that entire prosecution case is false and fabricated, being full of improbabilities and contradictions. In the alternative, it is submitted that as all the injuries on the person of injured are simple in nature and attaining circumstances do not demonstrate that appellants attempted to commit murder of Jeet Singh and, therefore, their conviction under section 307 IPC or 307/109 IPC is illegal. 4. I have read the statement of PW 3 Jeet Singh. He has stated all the facts which have been narrated in the preceding paras, thus, it is not necessary to reiterate the same. Suffice it to say that his statement supports the prosecution case. Nothing has been pointed out to disbelieve his statement. He is injured and his statement is natural and trustworthy. His statement also finds support from the evidence of PW 5 Jaswant Singh. The version finds corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. D.R. Sharma, PW 10. He found following injuries on the person of injured Jeet Singh : "1. One punctured wound, margins lacerated and blackened, 1" x 1/2" x 21/2" downwards and medially, on medial side of upper part of thigh (right) 2"below the right ischial tuberosity and 13" from medial condyle of right femur; 2. One bruise 3" x 21/2" on medial side of right thigh just downwards to injury No. 1; 3. One punctured wound, margins lacerated and blackened, 1/2" x 1/2" x 3/4" on posterior aspect of lower part of left leg 21/2" from left medial malleolus." 5. The doctor categorically stated that all the injuries are simple in nature. The main question which falls for determination is whether in the facts of the case the conviction of the appellants under section 307 IPC is sustainable? The essential ingredient of offence under section 307 IPC is that the act attributed was done with intention to commit murder. Intention is to be gathered from various factors, i.e. motive, weapon used, manner in which used, severity of the blow, part of the body where the injury is caused. These are the few factors and not all factors. The essential ingredient of offence under section 307 IPC is that the act attributed was done with intention to commit murder. Intention is to be gathered from various factors, i.e. motive, weapon used, manner in which used, severity of the blow, part of the body where the injury is caused. These are the few factors and not all factors. In the instant case, having scanned the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that the appellants did not fire at jeer Singh with an intention to commit his murder. One injury on the thigh has been attributed to Sohan Singh and other injury on the leg has been attributed to Lakha Singh. If the appellants had an intention to commit murder, they were armed with twelve bore gun and, therefore, they could have caused injury on some other vital part of the body. This clearly indicates that the accused persons only intended to cause hurt to injured Jeet Singh. Thus, their conviction cannot be upheld for offence under section 307 IPC. 6. As regards third appellant-Amar Singh, the allegation against him is that he exhorted the first and second appellant to fire at Jeet Singh and, as such; he has been convicted of abetting attempt to murder i.e. 307/109 IPC. The prosecution story has been disbelieved by the trial Court with respect to two other accused persons, for the same reason the presence of the accused- appellant is doubtful. Thus, his conviction under section 307/109 is not sustainable. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of appellants-Sohan Singh and Lakhan Singh under section 307 IPC is set aside. So also conviction of appellant-Amar Singh under section 307/109 IPC is set aside. The conviction of appellants-Sohan Singh and Lakha Singh is altered from Section 307 to 324 IPC and their sentence for altered offence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, each of the appellants viz; Sohan Singh and Lakha Singh will pay compensation to the injured Jeet Singh, which is assessed at Rs. four thousand. Each of the appellants shall deposit Rs. two thousand before the trial Court within a period of four months from today. The amount so deposited shall be paid to injured Jeet Singh. However, each of the appellants viz; Sohan Singh and Lakha Singh will pay compensation to the injured Jeet Singh, which is assessed at Rs. four thousand. Each of the appellants shall deposit Rs. two thousand before the trial Court within a period of four months from today. The amount so deposited shall be paid to injured Jeet Singh. In case, the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the order of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone shall stand vacated and each of the appellants shall undergo six months' R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. five hundred and in default, to further undergo three months' R.I. In such event, C.J.M. Sri Ganganagar will ensure that both the appellants undergo the sentence.Appeal partly allowed. *******