M. C. JAIN, J. The appellant is one Chheda Lal who has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16- 2- 1981 passed by Sri Usha Kant Verma, the then Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 1980, State v. Chheda Lal. He has been convicted under Section 326 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The accused appellant allegedly killed Ram Shankar in village Bilgavan, P. S. Sajeti, District Kanpur on 19-2-1980 at about 8 p. m. by shooting. The report was lodged by Gore Lal, brother of the deceased the same night at 2. 50 a. m. The appellant had brought the victim with him and after half an hour, sound of firing was heard from his house. The witnesses ran to the house of the appellant on hearing the sound of firing and found Ram Shankar to be injured by shot. He had been hit in his leg and the pellets had been pierced through and through. On being asked, he stated that Chheda Lal appellant complained that he had been backbiting him in the village and then opened fire on him. Gore Lal and others searched for Chheda Lal. He, however, ran away from his house. The victim because of excessive bleeding became unconscious after some time. Originally, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered. However, he after having been removed to the hospital, died and the case was converted into that of Section 302 IPC. 3. The injuries sustained by him was gunshot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm at the lower end of the right thigh with margins inverted. Blackening was present in an area of 6 cm x 4. 5 cm around. There was corresponding gunshot wound of exit. In the beginning, he had been examined by Dr. N. Hasan, PW 3 in U. H. M. Hospital, Kanpur on 20-2-1980 at 2. 10 a. m. Post-mortem over his dead-body was conducted by Dr. Jai Prakash, P. W. 4 on 22-2-1980 at 4. 05 p. m. About 2-1/2 days had passed since he died. He was aged about 22 years. 4. The defence was of denial. The accused appellant stated under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that the deceased was carrying on love affair with Mamta, daughter of Baij Nath Pradhan and Ram Shanker was inimical to the said Pradhan. 05 p. m. About 2-1/2 days had passed since he died. He was aged about 22 years. 4. The defence was of denial. The accused appellant stated under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that the deceased was carrying on love affair with Mamta, daughter of Baij Nath Pradhan and Ram Shanker was inimical to the said Pradhan. According to him, Ram Shankar was his friend and on the date of incident he himself had gone to his uncle. 5. The prosecution in all examined six witnesses. Gorelal PW 1 is the brother of the deceased and Subedar PW 2 is another witness of fact, whose name finds place in the FIR also. Both of them proved that the accused Chheda Lal had taken with him Ram Shankar and after half an hour the sound of shot had been heard from the house of the accused-appellant. They rushed and saw Ram Shankar lying injured in the Dalan of the appellant, adjacent to chabutara. He was profusely bleeding and on being inquired, disclosed that Chheda Lal appellant charged him of backbiting and opened shot on him. A lighted lantern was hanging at the gate of the appellant at that time. Both of them also saw the appellant running from the spot. 6. On appraisal of evidence, the Court below found that the injury had been caused on leg (non-vital part), though the appellant could have shot the victim on the chest or some other vital part also. The doctors also did not say that the injury on the lower part of the leg of Ram Shankar was likely to cause death. Therefore, it was found that only the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC had been made out. 7. I have heard Sri R. C. Singh assisted by Sri Mayank Bhusan as also Sri P. K. Singh who was appointed as Amicus Curiae under order dated 26-8-2002 from the side of the appellant. Learned A. G. A. has been heard in opposition of the appeal. 8. Learned Counsel from the side of the appellant could not point out any flaw or infirmity in the finding recorded by the lower Court so far as the shooting of the victim by the appellant was concerned. The finding is perfectly justified and in tune with the evidence that has come on record. It could not be assailed even by testing it through cross-examination. The finding is perfectly justified and in tune with the evidence that has come on record. It could not be assailed even by testing it through cross-examination. Though the life of a young man was cut short but having regard to the seat of injury, learned trial Judge also took the most lenient view possible under law. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, urged for leniency. Four years rigorous imprisonment has been awarded by the lower Court and the judgment was passed on 16-2-1981. The ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellant is modified to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Chheda Lal under Section 326 IPC is maintained but his sentence is modified in that he shall undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 326 I. P. C. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Presently, he is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded to him. 11. Sri P. K. Singh, learned amicus curiae shall get Rs. 500/- as fee. 12. The office shall send the copy of this judgment along with the record to the Court below to ensure compliance of this judgment within two months under intimation to this Court. Appeal partly allowed. .