JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 29.9.1987 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant Sahab Ram for offence u/s. 307 IPC and also convicted accused appellant Krishan Lal for offence u/s. 307/34 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted both the accused appellants for offence u/ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced each of them as under: Name Conviction under section Sentence awarded Sahab Ram 307 IPC 4 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 3 months' R.I. Krishan Lal 307/34 IPC 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 3 months' R.I. Sahab Ram Krishan Lal 25 Arms Act 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 1 month's R.I. Sahab Ram Krishan Lal 27 Arms Act 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 1 month's R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) On 31.7.1983 PW-1 Brij Lal lodged an oral report Ex. P/1 with the Police Station Sadul Shahar before PW-8 Jagav Singh stating that he was having a dispute with the accused appellant Krishan Lal and because of the dispute, a case was also lodged against him and the same was pending in the Court and he also had dispute with another accused appellant Sahab Ram and that matter was also settled though compromise. But because of the dispute both the accused appellants had enmity with him and on the date of occurrence, when he was coming towards his house along with PW-2 Chet Ram and PW-3 Kalu Ram, on the way both the accused appellants met and both the accused appellants were armed with pistal. Accused appellant Krishan Lal fired with the pistal, but it was missed, thereupon accused appellant Krishan Lal told another accused appellant Sahab Ram to fire and he fired, as a result of which he received injuries and accused appellants ran away. 3. On this report police chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/1 and started investigation. 4. During investigation PW- 1 Brij Lal was got medically examined by PW-5 Dr. 3. On this report police chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/1 and started investigation. 4. During investigation PW- 1 Brij Lal was got medically examined by PW-5 Dr. Kailash Chandra and his injury report is Ex.P/6 and X-ray report is Ex.P/3 For proving the X-ray report Ex.P/3 PW-4 Dr. K.N. Makande has been produced as per which all the injuries on the person of PW-1 Brij Lal were found simple in nature. 5. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused appellants. 6. On 9.3.1984, the learned trial Judge framed charges for offence u/s. 307 IPC and Secs. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act against the accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge through his judgment and order dated 29.9.1987 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above. 8. Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 9. In this appeal, following two submissions have been raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellants: (i) That so far as conviction of the appellants for offence u/s. 307 IPC is concerned, the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge are erroneous one as from the evidence on record, it cannot be inferred that the accused appellants had any intention to murder PW-1 Brij Lal and, therefore they should be acquitted for offence u/s. 307 IPC. (ii) If the Court comes to the conclusion that the offence u/s. 324 IPC was committed by the accused appellants, then a lenient view should be taken in awarding the sentence to them and they should be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 10. I have heard both and perused the record and impugned judgment. 11. To meet out the above arguments, medical evidence in this case has to be seen first and the same is found in the statement of PW-5 Dr. Kailash Chandra who examined PW-1 Brij Lal on 30.7.1983. PW-5 Dr. Kailash Chandra has proved his injury report Ex. P/6 and it is also clear from the statement of PW-5 Dr. Kailash Chandra that injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 were caused by blunt object and rest injuries No. 3,5 and 7 were caused by fire arm. PW-5 Dr. Kailash Chandra who examined PW-1 Brij Lal on 30.7.1983. PW-5 Dr. Kailash Chandra has proved his injury report Ex. P/6 and it is also clear from the statement of PW-5 Dr. Kailash Chandra that injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 were caused by blunt object and rest injuries No. 3,5 and 7 were caused by fire arm. PW-5 Dr. Kailash Chandra has further admitted following facts: (i) That all the injuries found on the person of PW-1 Brijlal were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (ii) That apart from this, the injuries were not on vital parts. 12. From the statement of PW-4 Dr. K.N. Makande who conducted the X-ray of PW-1 Brij Lal it is also clear that all the injuries were found simple in nature. 13. Keeping this aspect in mind, it is to be seen whether a case for offence u/s. 307 IV C is made out against the accused appellants or not and whether findings of conviction for offence u/s. 307 IPC recorded by the learned trial Judge are liable to be confirmed one or not. 14. From the statements of injured PW-1 Brij Lal it is also clear that the accused appellant Sahab Ram fired once and not twice and it is also clear that the fire of another accused appellant Krishan Lal was missed. 15. Looking to the fact that in the present case all the injuries were found simple in nature and no second attempt was made by the accused appellants and injuries were not on vital part and they were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the accused appellants had any intention to murder PW-1 Brij Lal. Hence, findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge that the accused appellants committed offence u/s. 307 IPC cannot be sustained and accused appellants are entitled to acquittal for offence u/s. 307 IPC but they are liable to be convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC. Hence, findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge that the accused appellants committed offence u/s. 307 IPC cannot be sustained and accused appellants are entitled to acquittal for offence u/s. 307 IPC but they are liable to be convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC. This Court in the case of Mani Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 252 has taken similar view and held that the injuries have been caused to the non-vital parts of the body to the injured and they are simple in nature and, therefore, the accused appellant should have been held guilty of the offence u/s. 324 IPC rather than 307 IPC. That case was also a case of fire arm injuries. Accordingly, it is held that the accused appellants are entitled to acquittal for offence u/s. 307 IPC and are liable to be convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC.ON POINT OF SENTENCE 16. Looking to the fact that the accused appellant Sahab Ram has remained in PC/JC from 3.8.1983 to 4.12.1984 and 29.9.1987 to 12.10.1987 and accused appellant Krishan Lal has remained in P.C.M.C. from 3.8.1983 to 9.8.1983 and from 29.9.1987 to 12.10.1987 and looking to the fact that incident took place in the year 1983 and more than 18 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physicially and economically and it would not be proper now to send to accused appellants to jail, the period of sentence for which the accused appellants have remained in PC/JC would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice for conviction for offence u/s. 324 IPC and it is a fit case in which the accused-appellants should be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 17. In the result this appeal filed by the accused-appellants is partly allowed in the following manner : The judgment and order dated 29.9.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh are set aside in so far as they relate to conviction and sentence of accused-appellants Sahab Ram and Krishan Lal for offence u/ss. 307 & 307/34 IPC respectively, but accused-appellants are convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC. However, conviction of accused-appellants for offence u/ss. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh is maintained. 307 & 307/34 IPC respectively, but accused-appellants are convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC. However, conviction of accused-appellants for offence u/ss. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh is maintained. However, the order of sentence dated 29.9.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh is modified to the extent that the accused-appellants-Sahab Ram and Krishan Lal are sentenced for the offence u/s. 324 IPC and Secs. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act to the period already undergone by them. It is further directed that the accused appellants shall pay Rs. 2000/- each as compensation to the injured PW-1 Brij Lal. For depositing this amount in the trial Court, the accused appellants are granted 3 months' time from today and after depositing the said amount by the accused appellant, the same shall be paid to the injured PW-1 Brij Lal. The judgment and order dated 29.9.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh is modified to the above extent. Since the accused appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. IAppeal Partly allowed. *******