JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant-Chand Singh against the judgment and order dated 25.2.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh in Sessions Case No. 45/84 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for offence u/s. 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as under : Name of accused Convicted under section Sentence awarded Chand Singh 307 IPC 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 3 months' R.I. Chand Singh 27 of the Arms Act 2 years' R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 3.9.1984 at about 3.30 p.m. PW-2 Madan Singh lodged an oral report Ex.P/3 with the Police Station Pilibanga (Sri Ganganagar) before PW-6 Tara Chand stating that yesterday there was water turn of his uncle PW-4 Pratap Singh from 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. in the night and he along with PW-4 Pratap Singh, PW-3 Jagga Singh and others were watering their field. At about 9.00 p.m. in the night, when water started shortening, he said to PW-3 Jagga Singh to go towards the outlet to see what was the reason of shortening of water. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/3 that from the side of canal, accused-appellant cried that he had plugged the outlet of water. Hearing his cries, Bagh Singh, Labh Singh and Mangal Singh started to move towards the village to fetch PW-4 Pratap Singh. When tractor came, they mounted towards the canal on which accused-appellant fired and pallets coming from the gun hit him (PW-2 Modan Singh) and PW-3 Jagga Singh and he and PW-3 Jagga Singh both fell on the ground and made hue and cry. In the retaliation PW-4 Pratap Singh also fired two shots in the air from his licensed gun. 3. On this report, police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/3 and started investigation. 4. During investigation PW-3 Jagga Singh was got medically examined by PW-1 Dr. Rampratap and his injury report is Ex.P/1 which shows that he received only one abrasion by fire arm. PW-2 Modan Singh was also got medically examined by PW-1 Dr. Rampratap and his injury report is Ex.P/2 which shows that he received four simple injury of fire arm. 5. During investigation PW-3 Jagga Singh was got medically examined by PW-1 Dr. Rampratap and his injury report is Ex.P/1 which shows that he received only one abrasion by fire arm. PW-2 Modan Singh was also got medically examined by PW-1 Dr. Rampratap and his injury report is Ex.P/2 which shows that he received four simple injury of fire arm. 5. The accused-appellant was arrested through Fard Ex.P/9 on 9.9.1984 and after usual investigation the police submitted challan against the accused-appellant in the Court of Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh camp Suratgarh. 6. On 13.8.1985 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for offence u/s. 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case. The accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied to have committed any offence and no evidence was led in defence. 8. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge through his judgment and order dated 25.2.1987 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for offence u/s. 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 9. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order, this appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant. 10. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has raised following submissions : (i) The findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which he convicted the accused-appellant for offence u/s. 307 IPC are wrong one as the case does not travel beyond the scope of Section 324 IPC as the shots which were fired by the accused-appellant were fired at a very long distance. Therefore, from this, it cannot be gathered that the accused-appellant had any intention to murder PW-2 Modan Singh and PW-3 Jagga Singh. (ii) If the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused-appellant has committed offence u/s. 324 IPC in place of Section 307 IPC, he be released for the period already undergone as he has remained in jail for the period from 9.9.1984 to 1.11.1984 and 25.2.1987 to 25.3.1987 and that period is;sufficient to meet the ends of justice for offence u/s. 324 IPC. 11. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and they do not call for interference by this Court. 12. I have heard both and perused the record and impugned judgment. 13. To appreciate the above contention, first medical evidence in this case has to be seen. 14. PW- 1 Dr. Ram Pratap states that on 3.9.1984, he examined PW-3 Jagga Singh and found one abrasion of simple nature and he stated that that could have been caused by fire arm. He has proved his injury report Ex.P/1. Similarly PW-1 Dr. Ram Pratap examined PW-2 Modan Singh and found four simple injuries by fire arm out of which three were abrasions and one bruise and all were simple in nature. He has proved injury report of PW-2 Modan Singh Ex.P/2. 15. Thus from the statement of PW-1 Ram Pratap it has been proved by the prosecution that simple injuries were received by PW-2 Modan Singh and PW-3 Jagga Singh by fire arm. 16. The next question which arises for consideration is whether by causing these injuries offence u/s. 307 IPC is made out or not. 17. Before convicting the accused-appellant for offence u/s. 307 IPC the prosecution has to prove the following facts : (i) that the death of a human being was attempted. (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of, the act of the accused. (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or That the accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death or (b) such bodily injury as is. likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 18. Keeping in mind the above principles, the case of the prosecution has to be examined. 19. likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 18. Keeping in mind the above principles, the case of the prosecution has to be examined. 19. In this case, the fire which was said to be shot by the accused-appellant was shot from country made 12 bore pistol and pallets came out from it. PW-2 Modan Singh admits that when Chand Singh (accused-appellant) fired, they were at a distance of near about 20 to 25 ft. from the accused-appellant, and at that time, because of darkness he was not visible. Similarly PW-3 Jagga Singh admits that they were near about at a distance of one killa when Chand Singh (accused-appellant) fired. 20. It has been observed earlier that both the injured PW-2 Modan Singh and PW-3 Jagga Singh received simple injuries.20-A. In order to constitute "an attempt", first, there suit be an intention to commit a particular offence, second, some act must have been done which would necessarily have to be done towards the commission of the offence, and third, such act must be "proximate" to the intended result. The measure of proximity is not in relation to time and action but in relation to intention. In other words, the act must reveal, with reasonable certainty, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances and not necessarily in isolation, an intention, as distinguished from a mere desire or object, to commit the particular offence, though the act by itself maybe merely suggestive or indicative of such intention, but, that it must be, that is, it must be indicative or suggestive of the intention. 21. In this case from the statements of PW-2 Modan Singh and PW-3 Jagga Singh it has come on record that from a sufficient distance, the accused-appellant fired and he fired only one shot and pallets came out and hit PW-2 Modan Singh and PW-3 Jagga Singh as a result of which PW-2 received four simple injuries and PW-3 received one simple injuries. When a person is firing from sufficient distance, specially in the dark, therefore, to infer by that act he had intention to murder cannot be gathered as the act of the accused cannot be said to be proximate of his intention to murder. When a person is firing from sufficient distance, specially in the dark, therefore, to infer by that act he had intention to murder cannot be gathered as the act of the accused cannot be said to be proximate of his intention to murder. Therefore, by firing from a very long distance, the case of the prosecution that by doing so the accused-appellant attempted to murder PW-2 Modan Singh and PW-3 Jagga Singh cannot be accepted and findings of conviction for offence u/s. 307 IPC recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judged cannot be sustained and act of the accused-appellant falls u/s. 324 IPC and findings of conviction for offence u/s. 307 IPC recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be altered accordingly and accused-appellant is liable to be convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC in place of Section 307 IPC.ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE 22. Looking to the fact that the accused-appellant has remained in jail from 9.9.1984 to 1.11.1984 and from 25.2.1987 to 25.3.1987 i.e. for a period of near about three months for offence u/s. Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act if the accused-appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by them, it would meet the ends of justice. 23. In the result this appeal filed by the accused-appellant-Chand Singh is partly allowed in the following manner:- The conviction of accused-appellant for the offence u/s. 307 IPC recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh camp Suratgarh vide his judgment dated 25.2.1987 is altered and instead of 307 IPC, he is convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC and the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh, stands modified accordingly. The conviction of the accused-appellant for offence u/s. 27 of the Arms Act recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh is maintained. For offence u/s. 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act the accused-appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The order of sentence dated 25.2.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh camp Suratgarh also stands modified accordingly.Since the accused-appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Appeal partly allowed. *******