R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-5-1986 in S. T. No. 3/85, passed by the Court of Shri K. K. Shrivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, whereby the appellant Rajan was convicted and sentenced as under : (I) U/s. 307, I. P. C. : R. I. for 3 years. (II) U/s. 25/27 Arms Act: R. I. for two years. A co-accused Munna alias Vinod Kumar was acquitted of the charges. ( 2 ) THE charge found established by the trial Court was that on 23-6-84 a police party consisting of a number of police officials including PW-2 Raghunath Singh, Head Constable, PW-3 Roop Narayan, A. S. I. , PW-4 Ram Narayan, Constable and a number of others and Bhawandeen and Shyamdeen were on duty for prevention of dacoity in the area of Police out post Majhgawan, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Koti, district Satna. On receiving information that there were some miscreants in a jungle in that area, this party proceeded to apprehend them. The party was duly armed with fire arms and ammunition. As they approached the jungle, they noticed two persons, the alleged accused, and started surrounding them from a distance. The acquitted accused Munna alias Vinod Kumar was carrying a rifle. The appellant Rajan took that rifle from him and fired a short towards the police party. It struck nobody and nobody knows up to what point it reached. The police party retaliated with fire and as the two miscreants had been surrounded from all sides, they surrendered. The rifle, vide Ex. P/6, with 24 cartridges and one empty cartridge in the chamber of the rifle, was seized from Rajan appellant. On these established facts, Munna alias Vinod Kumar who held the rifle initially was acquitted and Rajan appellant who fired the shot was convicted, as already noticed above. ( 3 ) THE main evidence on which reliance was placed by the trial Court consisted of statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. There was sanction for prosecution for offence under Section 25 Arms Act against Rajan appellant. The sanction order was granted by PW-8 the District Magistrate. The public witnesses-Bhagwandeen, Sitaram and Shyamdeen turned hostile. They were alleged recovery witnesses to the seizure of rifle from Rajan. There was sanction for prosecution for offence under Section 25 Arms Act against Rajan appellant. The sanction order was granted by PW-8 the District Magistrate. The public witnesses-Bhagwandeen, Sitaram and Shyamdeen turned hostile. They were alleged recovery witnesses to the seizure of rifle from Rajan. The witnesses PW-2, 3 and 4 supported the above prosecution version of seizure from the accused, firing by Rajan and seizure of rifle and empty as well as ammunition from Rajan. These witnesses are police officials. ( 4 ) THE contention of learned counsel for the appellant is firstly that there is no offence under Section 307, I. P. C. established as it is not in evidence that the firing was done from an effective range and was close to any member of the police party or that it was aimed at particular member or generally towards a closely moving group of police officials. The only evidence is that the accused, from a distance of about 200-300 yards, fired a short in the direction of the police party. How far wide or high from the police officers it was, is not stated. Whether it reached any of the members of the police party is also not stated. What was the range of the rifle is not stated, nor proved from the evidence of any ballistic expert. No such opinion was taken or proved. So it is not a case where it was established that the accused did everything in their power to kill any particular or at least one of the members of the police party. It is urged that in these circumstances the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. is not established or at least it is doubtful whether such an offence was committed or there was such intention on the part of the firing accused. ( 5 ) THE second leg of the argument of counsel for the appellant is that even if the rifle was fired, it might have been fired wide away from the police party or towards the sky and it might have been a stray test firing, so it could not attract Section 27 Arms Act, it did not amount to user of the rifle. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the State is unable to meet the argument regarding charge under Section 307, I. P. C. This Court has closely perused the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and other documents on record. Of course, it was a rifle of. 034 bore with live cartridges available with the accused and one empty was in the chamber of the rifle. In these circumstances the evidence of the three police officials that the rifle was fired, is acceptable even in the absence of evidence from the ballistic expert as it is not the case of the prosecution that the rifle was sent to any expert for examination. Mere firing, does not raise inference of attempt to murder. Fire should be specifically aimed. The mens rea required under Section 300, I. P. C. has to exist, there has also to exist an effective act to achieve the end of killing. An 'attempt' means doing everything by an accused within his power to achieve the final result, but, the final result alludes because something, beyond his control, intervenes e. g. there may be slight deflection of the shot or something comes in between suddenly or the victim is saved with medical aid after being struck. None of these circumstances is established in this case. So the act of firing, generally in the direction of approaching police people, does not show aiming at the group or on a particular police official. It is not shown that firing was so dangerous as in all probabilities to kill one of the members of police party. So, that act does fall under Section 307, I. P. C. The appellant deserves acquittal from that charge. He is acquitted of that charge. ( 7 ) AS regards the offence under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, the statements of the three witnesses; PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 who were police officials and party to the seizure memo, clearly established that this rifle was recovered from this accused appellant along with live cartridges and one empty. They have no animus against the accused. One contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the two public witnesses; Bhagwandeen and Shyamdeen, allegedly with the police party, have been admitted by all these witnesses, as having indulged in dacoity earlier to this incident. They have no animus against the accused. One contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the two public witnesses; Bhagwandeen and Shyamdeen, allegedly with the police party, have been admitted by all these witnesses, as having indulged in dacoity earlier to this incident. So the argument is that the police had joined with them such desperate people as public witnesses and even these public witnesses have not supported the story of seizure from the accused, even if they are hostile to their previous statement. So the whole action of the police should be doubted. ( 8 ) I am afraid the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, in this case, cannot be accepted. It is not essential that for moving to prevent the dacoity, the police should join with them some public persons as witnesses. They could move without joining any public person. They were on preventive round. It is not shown that any of these police officials has any animus against the accused. Their statements are supported by the fact that the rifle was recovered with live cartridges and empty. This is sufficient corroboration to their testimony. So this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly held that this rifle was recovered from Rajan along with live cartridges and one empty cartridge. That makes out certainly offence under Section 25 Arms Act. ( 9 ) THE statement of these three witnesses prove that the rifle was fired. The appellant has no licence for this rifle. He was not justified to fire when he knew that the people were moving around. Even otherwise, no person is entitled to fire a rifle aimlessly unless it is in a practising ground, on a practising target, with a licensed rifle. Presently, it amounts, to illegal user. The fact that the rifle was fired is confirmed by presence of one empty in the rifle. The police officials of at least in the rank of Head Constable are sufficiently trained to know that the rifle is fit for firing. At least they can be believed when the arm has been fired in their presence. So this rifle was illegally used by Rajan appellant. He committed an offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act also. Thus the appellant has been rightly convicted for offence punishable under Sections 25/27 Arms Act. At least they can be believed when the arm has been fired in their presence. So this rifle was illegally used by Rajan appellant. He committed an offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act also. Thus the appellant has been rightly convicted for offence punishable under Sections 25/27 Arms Act. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 25/27 Arms Act is confirmed. ( 10 ) COMING to the sentence for these offences, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that a period of 15 years have passed since the accused was first apprehended and he has been facing agony of trial; first before the trial Court and then before this Court in appeal, where his appeal was dismissed. Then he approached the Supreme Court, when the case was remanded back to this Court for re-hearing of the appeal and now again this appeal is being heard by this Court for second time and, thus, all this period has passed. The argument is that in these circumstances he should be exempted or given relief from fresh imprisonment. He has remained in custody for about more than three and half months, but, the exact period is not known, from present record, except that in December 1984 he was on bail. ( 11 ) AN offence under Section 25, Arms Act is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years, but, the minimum sentence had to be six months, at that time. As the possession was in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act, the punishment under Section 27 Arms Act at the relevant time could be imprisonment up to 7 years and fine. ( 12 ) AFTER considering all facts and circumstances of the case and the period elapsed since commission of offence, and during trial up to this stage, this Court at least the sentence to imprisonment for the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, failing which, the appellant shall further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and half years. The appellant is given two months time to deposit of the fine amount, failing which, he shall surrender to his bonds to undergo the default sentence. The trial Court shall see to it that he pays the fine or suffers the default sentence after being arrested. ( 13 ) THE appeal is accordingly partly accepted. Order accordingly. .