JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.6.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, Sangariya in Sessions Case No. 49/2002 (49/2000) (State v. Jaswant Singh @ Sethi) whereby learned trial court found the accused appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and convicted him for the said offence and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned as well as record of the trial court. 3. The prosecution story as set-up by the prosecution is that on 28.6.2000 at about 12.30 PM, accused appellant fired a country made pistol at PW1 Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal on his both legs. Due to fire arm, injured suffered simple injuries on his legs below knee. The prosecution in support of its case produced PW1 Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal, PW2 Mani Ram, PW3 Vedprakash, PW4 Basti Ram, PW5 Sultan, PW6 Shetan Singh, PW7 Swarn Singh, PW8 Dr. Sushila Choudhary, PW9 Jaipal, PW10 Hansraj, and PW11 Munshi Singh. Statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.RC. was recorded in which he denied the allegations. On appreciation of evidence, trial court came to conclusion that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case under Section 307 IPC against the accused appellant and he was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no repetition of fire arm injuries and injuries suffered by PW1 Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal are simple in nature and not on the vital part of the body. On the contrary, it was on the legs below the knee and, therefore, intention to commit murder cannot be inferred. There is no evidence on record to suggest that accused appellant ever intended to commit murder of injured so Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal. 5. I have carefully gone through the statement of injured PW1 Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal and other eye witnesses produced by prosecution. I. have also gone through the statements of PW8 Dr. Sushila Choudhary, who examined the injured soon after the occurrence and prepared the injury report. She in her statement has stated that both the injuries were not dangerous to life and also not on the vital part of the body. I. have also gone through the statements of PW8 Dr. Sushila Choudhary, who examined the injured soon after the occurrence and prepared the injury report. She in her statement has stated that both the injuries were not dangerous to life and also not on the vital part of the body. She further stated that both the injuries were simple in nature. From the statement of PW1 Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal, it nowhere reveals that accused appellant ever intended to commit the murder of PW1. Thus there is no allegation against the appellant of attempt to commit murder. What has been established from the prosecution evidence, is that accused intended and caused simple hurt to injured Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Judgments of this Court in the case of (i) Sohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1999 (1) RCC 539 (ii) Saheb Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 (2) CJ (Raj.) Cr 685 ; (iii) Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1988 Cr LR (Raj.) 342 ; and (iv) Nenu Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in, 2000 Cr LR (Raj) 271 murder. 7. In this view of the matter, findings of the trial court holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and convicting under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained and is set aside and it is held that prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence under Section 324 IPC against the appellant, therefore, conviction of appellant is altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC. 8. A compromise has been filed by complainant before this court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. with the request to permit him to compound the offence in question. Offence under Section 324 IPC is compoundable by the injured with the permission of court. The complainant/injured Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal is present in the court today and he states that accused and complainant are close relatives and they have compromised the matter. The complainant seeks permission of this court to compound the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Permission to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC is granted. The complainant is permitted to compound the offence. The compromise has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) Raj. High Court, Jodhpur. 9. The complainant seeks permission of this court to compound the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Permission to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC is granted. The complainant is permitted to compound the offence. The compromise has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) Raj. High Court, Jodhpur. 9. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted for the said offence. Since injured complainant Kalu Ram @ Chandrapal has compounded the offence under Section 324 IPC, the accused appellant Jaswant Singh @ Sethi is acquitted of the offence under Section 324 IPC. Appeal is accordingly disposed of Appellant is presently in Jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in other case. 10. Since appellant has been acquitted, the application seeking suspension of sentence has become in-fructuous and as such disposed of.Appeal Disposed of as Above. *******