JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh convicting the appellant of offence under Section 307 I.RC. and sentencing him to 3 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The learned Judge also convicted the accused appellant of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act sentencing him to 1 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment, to further undergo 1 months S.I. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 9.12.1976 at about 8 p.m. PW/5 Maniram and PW/6 Rampratap were returning to their house in the tractor from their field. When they reached near their house, the accused Banwarilal and his father Ramdhan were standing in front of their house. Seeing them, the accused Ramdhan asked Banwarilal that the enemies are passing. It is alleged that Banwarilal, armed with 12 bore gun, fired, on account of which, injuries were sustained on his right side of thigh. Maniram made a cry and fell down. Rampratap tried to lift him, when he tried to get up, Ramdhan again shouted that the enemy has come and he should be killed and Banwarilal again fired hitting Rampratap on the right side of thigh. Both the injured persons were taken in the house. They, were taken to the hospital on the same day. They were examined by PW/4 Dr. S.M. Sani. He prepared injury report Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9. On radiological examination, it was found that there was a fracture on right side of thigh of Maniram. The police also found that the accused Banwarilai was carrying 12 bore gun without licence. Thus, the Police, after usual investigation filed chargesheet against the accused Banwarilal and Ramdhan of offence under Secs. 307 and 324 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses, in the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. the accused persons stated that infact Rampratap and Maniram were injured by Hazariram but, as the compromise took place between them, the accused persons have been falsely implicated because of land dispute. The Trial Court relying on the testimony of the injured witnesses, corroborated by the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced both the appellants as stated above. 3. the accused persons stated that infact Rampratap and Maniram were injured by Hazariram but, as the compromise took place between them, the accused persons have been falsely implicated because of land dispute. The Trial Court relying on the testimony of the injured witnesses, corroborated by the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced both the appellants as stated above. 3. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by the learned counsel that the injuries on the persons of Maniram and Rampratap show that the appellant had no intention to kill them and as such, his conviction under Section 307 I.RC. is not sustainable. On the other hand the learned P.P. assisted by Mr. Mridul Jain, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submits that the appellant Banwarilal did not satisfy by causing injury to Maniram, and again fired at Rampratap which clearly demonstrates that the accused fired the gun with intention to kill them. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. I have read the statements of PW/5 Maniram and PW/6 Rampratap injured witnesses. The fact of firing gun by Banwarilal has been stated by both the witnesses. It finds corroboration by the medical evidence. Nothing has been pointed out as to why the statement of PW/5 and PW/6 should not be believed. In view of this, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. So far as the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, the act of repeated fire by Banwarilal, clearly brings home the prosecution case against the appellant. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. deserves to be confirmed. He has also been convicted of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, as the appellant was carrying 12 bore gun without licence and, therefore, his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act also deserves to be confirmed. 5. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the incident is of year 1976 i.e., prior to 22 years, and looking to the manner in which the incident took place, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is stated that he has already undergone sentence of 105 days. 5. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the incident is of year 1976 i.e., prior to 22 years, and looking to the manner in which the incident took place, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is stated that he has already undergone sentence of 105 days. In my view, the ends of justice would meet if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and the appellant is directed to pay the compensation to the injured PW/5 Maniram & PW/6 Rampratap. 6. in view of the aforesaid, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I.RC. and 27 of the Arms Act is confirmed. However, the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant will deposit the sum of Rs. 10000/- as compensation before the Trial Court. On depositing the amount or compensation of Rs. 10000/-, the Trial Court shall pay Rs. 5000/- to the injured PW/5 Maniram and PW/6 Rampratap. Four months time is granted for depositing the amount of compensation. In case the appellant does not deposit the amount of compensation within the stipulated period, the order reducing the sentence shall stand vacated and he will undergo the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. With this modification on the ppint of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed. *******