Judgment A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1. ) This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-4-2004 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol (Camp Beohari) in Sessions Trial No. 2/2003 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (In short the IPC) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. The trial Court further directed that the amount of fine to be paid to the complainant Mahabali as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity the Code). ( 2. ) In brief the case of prosecution is that the complainant Mahabali on 18-11-2002 at 5 p.m. was grazing his ox in his field. His sister-in-law was cutting the crop. On hearing the scold of his Bhabhi, the complainant rushed towards her and found that the appellant had entered into an altercation with her. The complainant found that the appellant was carrying a gun and was restraining his Bhabhi to cut the crop. On seeing the complainant he (appellant) brandished the gun to appellant and gave threat of dire consequences, Despite the threat the complainant caught hold of the gun of appellant as a result of which he (appellant) hurled abuses and threatened to kill him. Thereafter the accused fired the gun and the bullet struck the right calf of the complainant, as a consequence of which the flesh of that region was ripped over. In spite of the aforesaid injury complainant continued to grapple with the appellant, as he wanted to load the gun again, but, he failed because complainant was grappling with him. At that juncture, Lav Kush, Ram Kripal and Motilal arrived at the spot. On seeing these persons the appellant fled and left the gun at the spot. The incident was witnessed by Bhabhi (sister-in-law) of complainant, name Jamuni Bai, who had testified that the appellant was making threatening utterances. ( 3. ) The incident was reported at the police station by the injured complainant, Mahabali. On the basis of FIR by the complainant, the criminal law was set in motion. The incident was witnessed by Bhabhi (sister-in-law) of complainant, name Jamuni Bai, who had testified that the appellant was making threatening utterances. ( 3. ) The incident was reported at the police station by the injured complainant, Mahabali. On the basis of FIR by the complainant, the criminal law was set in motion. The investigating agency sent the complainant for medical examination; recorded the statements of witnesses; prepared the spot map; seized necessary articles and after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet in competent Court from where it was received by the trial Court for trial. ( 4. ) The learned trial Judge framed charge punishable under Section 307 IPC. The appellant denied the indictment and requested for trial. ( 5. ) In order to bring home charge, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Ex. P-1 to P-19 the documents on record. ( 6. ) The defence of accused is of false implication. In his defence, he examined one R. P. Singh (DW-1) and J. N. Pandey (DW-2). Further defence of the accused is that in the incident he also sustained injury as per Ex. D-4 which has not been explained by the prosecution. ( 7. ) The Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that prosecution successfully proved charge against the appellant and convicted him under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him as has been indicated hereinabove. ( 8. ) Questioning the presentableness of conviction, Shri J. S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below has erred in convicting the appellant. According to him, if the evidence is considered in proper perspective, it would be revealed that no offence is made out. Alternatively, it is contended by him that the case would not rest under the ambit and sweep of Section 307 IPC and at the most an offence under Section 324 IPC is made out. The further alternative submission which has been set forth by him is that even if it is held that offence under Section 307 IPC is proved then the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of life and fine Rs.5000/-is absolutely excessive. ( 9. The further alternative submission which has been set forth by him is that even if it is held that offence under Section 307 IPC is proved then the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of life and fine Rs.5000/-is absolutely excessive. ( 9. ) Per contra, Shri S. K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the trial Court has given its bestowed consideration on the evidence placed on record and thereafter come to hold that appellant has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC and looking to the gravity of the offence, the appellant has been rightly convicted by impugned judgment and the sentence is decidedly adequate. ( 10. ) In order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, we shall now examine the evidence which have been placed on record. The star witnesses to the incident are injured complainant Mahabali (PW-1), PW-3, Lav Kush Singh, PW-5, Ram Kripal and PW-8, Jamuni Bai. Another important witness is PW-6, Motilal who soon after the incident, arrived at the spot. ( 11. ) In his testimony, it has been stated by the injured complainant that on the fateful day near about 4.30 p.m. he was grazing his ox, at some distance his Bhabhi was cutting the crop and, thereafter he heard shriek of his Bhabhi asking for her help as the appellant grappled with her. As per his version he arrived at that place and found that the appellant was grappling with his Bhabhi and was carrying a 12 bore gun. On seeing him, he ran up to some distance and he fired the gun at him, as a result of which, the bullet struck his right leg. He has further deposed that inhabitants of the village brought to police station and he lodged the report (Ex.P-1) which bears his signature. In cross-examination, he has stated that report was not lodged by him and the same was lodged by his brother. Thereafter he clarified the ambiguity and said that he was speaking in a low tone and he had lodged report and signed it. Despite roving cross-examination except certain minor discrepancies nothing has been elicited to discard his version. The other witnesses, namely, PW-3, Lav Kush, PW-4, Mahaveer, PW-5, Ram Kripal and PW-8, Jamuni Bai have corroborated the testimony of this witness. Despite roving cross-examination except certain minor discrepancies nothing has been elicited to discard his version. The other witnesses, namely, PW-3, Lav Kush, PW-4, Mahaveer, PW-5, Ram Kripal and PW-8, Jamuni Bai have corroborated the testimony of this witness. PW-6, Motilal soon after the incident arrived at the spot and is a witness of res gesta. The evidence of complainant and eye witnesses is corroborated by medical evidence. The injury report of complainant is Ex. P-8A. PW-11, Dr. J. N. Pandey who has proved the injury report of complainant has testified that the gun shot wound was 4" x 3" muscle deep and at that place flesh was not ripped over. The injury was caused by gun shot within 12 hours and in the absence of any complication the injury was simple in nature. The injured was referred to Medical College Rewa. The doctor has deposed that at the time of examination, the injury was appearing to be simple in nature but ordinarily the gun shot injury is never simple. This important fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that around the area of wound 4" x 3" of calf of injured, flesh was ripped over and, therefore, according to us, gun shot injury was fatal. It has come in the evidence that appellant was shouting that whoever would cut the crop, face elimination, since complainant tried to intervene and removed the appellant who was -grappling with his Bhabhi, appellant with an intention to kill complainant fired the gun. The appellant had threatened not to cut the crop. When the complainant intervened he did face the dire consequence and received the gun shot injury. Thus, we are of the considered view that the intention of appellant was to kill the complainant, as a result of which he fired the gun shot and eventually complainant received injury. ( 12. ) Since the appellant fled from the spot leaving the gun, the same was recovered by the police and was sent to ballistic expert for its examination. The report of ballistic expert is Ex. P-17 and the gun was found to be operational. The ballistic expert also examined the empty cartridge and the firing pin was compared with the impression on empty cartridge and it was opined that the cartridge was fired by the same gun. The report of ballistic expert is Ex. P-17 and the gun was found to be operational. The ballistic expert also examined the empty cartridge and the firing pin was compared with the impression on empty cartridge and it was opined that the cartridge was fired by the same gun. Thus, it is proved that appellant fired the gun, as a result of which complainant sustained injury. ( 13. ) The contention of learned counsel for appellant is that injury sustained by the accused are not explained by the prosecution and, therefore, no offence is proved. On going through the injury report of appellant (Ex.D-4), it is gathered that there are two lacerated wounds, one contusion and one swelling. The doctor has opined that all the injuries are simple in nature. Since the injuries are simple in nature, the prosecution was not obliged to explain them. Moreover, there is no cogent evidence on record, to infer that in exercise of right of private defence, appellant fired the gun. Since there is evidence that appellant was grappling in this situation, it is quite possible that he may sustain injuries which are noticed by the doctor on examining him. ( 14. ) We have given our anxious and bestowed consideration to the evidence placed on record and we find that a clear case is made out by the prosecution under Section 307 IPC against the accused appellant. We have also considered the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Judge in holding so. The reasonings assigned by learned trial Judge are cogent and based on evidence placed on record. Learned counsel for appellant could not point out any infirmity in the judgment in order to hold that the reasonings are not in accordance with law, ( 15. ) We shall now examine the alternative submission put forth by the learned counsel for appellant. As we have already held that appellant committed the offence under Section 307 IPC, therefore question does not arise that offence has been committed under Section 324 IPC. The other alternative submission which has been raised by learned counsel for appellant is in regard to the quantum of sentence. True, it is the appellant who with an intention to kill PW-1, Mahabali fired the gun. The other alternative submission which has been raised by learned counsel for appellant is in regard to the quantum of sentence. True, it is the appellant who with an intention to kill PW-1, Mahabali fired the gun. It is also true that in the area of his calf measuring 4" x 3" flesh was ripped of on account of gun shot injury, but it cannot be lost sight on the fact that the injury is not on the vital part of the body and, therefore, it would not be justified to impose sentence of life imprisonment on the appellant. According to us, it would be proper to impose 2 years R. I. In the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762 : (1999 Cri LJ 4606) the Apex Court has laid down the law while considering the scope of Section 357(3) Cr. P. C. that the Magistrate cannot restrict itself in awarding compensation under Section 357(3) Cr. P. C. since there is no limit in sub-section (3) and therefore Magistrate can award any sum of compensation. The Supreme Court further held that while fixing the quantum of compensation, the Magistrate should consider what would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the complainant. In the case of Dr. Jacob George v. State of Kerala, 1994 Cri LJ 3851, the Supreme Court in para 21 has said as under :- "21. Section 314 has not visualized the sentence of imprisonment only, but permits imposition of fine also. The High Court has imposed a fine of Rs.5000/-. According to us, however, the fine is required to be enhanced considerably. We have taken this view, inter alia, because of what has been provided in Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has a message of its own in this regard. It was spelt out by this Court in Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127 : (1989 Cri LJ 116); in which Shetty, J. speaking for a two Judge Bench stated that the power of imposing fine is intended to do something to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is to some extent a constructive approach to crimes and a step forward in a criminal justice system. It is because of this that it was recommended that all Criminal Courts should exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice, by cautioning that the amount of compensation to be awarded must be reasonable." ( 16. ) Thus, in order that the collective may not loose faith in criminal adjudication system and the concept of deterrence is not kept at a remote corner we are disposed to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs.30,000/-. At this juncture we may fruitfully refer to the case of Sarup Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2452 : (1995 Cri LJ 4168) wherein the Apex Court while reducing the sentence for the period already undergone by an accused of an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation. We have enhanced the amount of compensation taking into consideration the gravity of injury, the strata to which the accused belongs, the milieu in which the crime has taken place and further keeping in view the cry of the society for the victims at large. The entire amount shall be paid to the injured on proper identification. The said sum shall be deposited before the Trial Court within four months failing which the appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 4 years. ( 17. ) Resultantly, the conviction of appellant under Section 307 IPC is hereby maintained, but the sentence is modified as indicated hereinabove. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.