JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentence 3 years rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 750/- fine in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 32/80 on 29.9.81. 2. The incident took place on 3.1.1980 at 9:00 A.M. in village Prathoi. It alleged that due to dispute over taking water from the common well of the complainant and the appellant, the appellant fired shot at Virma with an intention to cause his death Shri Virma received the injury on his abdomen. The learned trial court found the testimony of Virma injured PW. 3 and other ate witnesses Keekla PW. 1, Deva PW. 2 and Kalu P.W. 4 wholly reliable and lame to the conclusion that the appellant brought the gun from his house Ind fired at Virma causing injury on his abdomen with an intention to cause leath. Thus, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by he impugned judgment. 3. I have gone through the evidence of injured Virma P.W. 3 and other eye witnesses and I find that their testimony is trustworthy. There are no contradictions in the statements in order to render their testimony in believable. Virma injured has been fully corroborated by the above eye witnesses as well as the medical evidence on record. Thus, there is no cogent ground to interfere with the finding of conviction against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has also not submitted any argument about the evidence on record and the finding of conviction. He has only argued on the quantum of sentence. 4. It is contended can behalf of the appellant that he has remained in Jail for 33 days and the matter relates to the year 1980 when the age of the appellant was about 65 years. The appellant has already suffered mental agony and also financial hardship for the last 19 years during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has also come to the conclusion that the injury sustained by Virma was not en-dangerous but of simple nature. However, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was considered to have been proved on the ground that the intention of the appellant to fire shot at Virma was to cause his death. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has also come to the conclusion that the injury sustained by Virma was not en-dangerous but of simple nature. However, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was considered to have been proved on the ground that the intention of the appellant to fire shot at Virma was to cause his death. In the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it is urged that the substantive sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to already undergone. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this contention and also submitted that in case the court is inclined to take a lenient view, adequate compensation should be awarded to the victim Virma P.W. 3. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. In view of the over all facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant, I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from 3 years to already undergone but to enhance the sentence of fine in order to award compensation to the victim Virma PW. 3. Therefore, the fine of Rs. 750/- is hereby enhanced to Rs. 15,000/. 6. In the result, this appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the Appellant Laloo under Section 307 I.P.C. is hereby maintained but the sentence of imprisonment is altered to the period already undergone and it is hereby ordered that the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant shall deposit the fine within two months from today. On deposit of the said fine, a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the injured Virma or to his legal heirs by giving him due notice.Appeal partly allowed. *******