Judgment B.N.P.SINGH, J. 1. The appellant suffered conviction on being tried by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(A) of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 3 years respectively. The appellant was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix are that the police on receipt of confidential information about the appellant, who was wanted by the police, to be available in the house of Janardan Choubey, led a trap in the hitters house where he was apprehended with fire arm and live cartridges. The appellant was shown to have opened fire on the police. It was alleged that after being apprehended by the police, a seizure memo was prepared and a police case was accordingly instituted. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet in the case was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant was put on trial and was convicted and sentenced as stated above on various counts. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant very fairly without strenuously challenging the conviction of the appellant under Arms Act confined his argument to the sentences imposed on him on various counts by the trial court and it is sought to be urged that though the appellant also stood convicted and sentenced under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code regard being had to the evidences placed on the record that when the appellant took recourse to firing, aim was lost there was no good evidence of causing bodily injury or committing arm act clothed with intention to kill members of raiding party. 4. I have carefully gone through the evidences placed on the record and find myself in complete agreement with the counsel that the conviction of the appellant and sentence imposed on him under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was without a good evidence. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant are hereby set aside. 5. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant are hereby set aside. 5. Next it is sought to be urged that the appellant has remained in custody for more that four years and he suffered rigorous of the presentation for such a long period. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1977 and it was in the year 1990, about 13 years, when the trial culminated and proceeding initiated against the appellant came to an end in his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, as stated above. 6. Regard being had to the long period of prosecution of the appellant, the sentences awarded to the appellant under Section 15(A) and 27 of the Arms Act are reduced to the period already undergone in custody by him and with this medication in conviction and sentence, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.