Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-This appeal under Section 374, CrPC has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 06.04.1987 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 29/86 State vs. Harlal, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section Sentence awarded 307, IPC 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof to suffer further 6 months R.I. 27, Arms Act One years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that at 3:00 pm on 07.06.1986 PW.4 Hansram Jat gave an oral report at Police Station, Bhadra to the effect that on previous night after consuming liquor Harlal (accused-appellant) had quarreled with his brother Bhadar and today at about 12 in the day while his brother Pokar Ram was coming home from bus-stand and reached the house of Hanuman and sitting there, Harlal challenged him saying that yesterday his brother had escaped but he would see to him. At that time the informant was standing outside the temple. Harlal, who was having a single barrel gun in his hand, fired two shots at his brother to kill him which struck him; one at the left hands fingers and the other at left thigh. It was further stated that while the informant proceeded towards his brother, accused again challenged and forbid Magaram to allow the informant to go inside his house saying that he would also kill the informant and thereafter went towards his house. 3. On the basis of above report, a regular FIR was chalked out and Criminal Case No.33/86 under Section 307, IPC & 27, Indian Arms Act was registered. and investigation commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, Station House Officer PW7 Abdul Aziz, reached at the spot, prepared site-plan Exhibit - P/4, site-inspection memo Exhibit - P/12 at the instance of Hansraj, and taken control and smeared soil from the spot and seized and sealed them preparing memos. Pokar Ram was taken to the Govt. Hospital, Bhadra, where he was medically examined. Report in that regard is Exhibit - P/15. The blood-stained Dhoti, which was also having the spot of pallets, was seized and sealed vide Memo Ex. P/8. Pokar Ram was taken to the Govt. Hospital, Bhadra, where he was medically examined. Report in that regard is Exhibit - P/15. The blood-stained Dhoti, which was also having the spot of pallets, was seized and sealed vide Memo Ex. P/8. Accused Harlal was arrested on 21.06.1986 through Arrest Memo Exhibit - P/13, who in the police custody gave information of getting one 12 bore single barrel gun from his residential house. The report in this respect was reduced in writing vide Exhibit - P/14. In pursuance to the information of accused, from the place as indicated by accused, one 12 bore single barrel gun which was loaded with an empty cartridge was recovered through memo Exhibit - P/9. The site plan of the place from where the gun was recovered was also prepared and the articles so recovered, including the pallets found by Medical Officer, were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory through Constable PW. 9 Dharamsingh. The report received from FSL is Exhibit - P/22. The report confirmed human blood on the Dhoti. 5. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused-appellant under Section 307, IPC and 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra and the learned Magistrate, prima facie finding it a case related to an offence under Section 307, IPC, exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, committed it and on committal the matter came up for trial before the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nohar, who took cognizance and framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 307, IPC and 27, Indian Arms Act. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and tendered several documents in evidence. 6. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which accused denied the prosecution version and stated that he had not gone at the spot at the time of preparing site plan so also denied recovery of the gun. He stated that due to party politics the witnesses have deposed against him. He stated that due to party politics the witnesses have deposed against him. In addition to that he stated that at the house of Pokar Ram, Puranram Beniwal, Jagmal Puniya and his brother Bhadar were drinking liquor and at that time Puranram and Jagmal were having 12 bore licensed guns with them. According to him, Liluram, the son of Pokar, had lifted the gun and in that process the gun had fired and Pokar sustained pallet injuries. He further stated that his gun was taken by the police along with the gun of Puranram on that day. He also stated that Pokar Ram filed a forge case against him in relation to encroachment on land. In defence, he produced DW. 1 Bhadar Ram, DW. 2 Mani Ram and cross-examined PW. 2 Magharam and PW. 4 Hansraj. 7. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated hereinabove. 8. Heard learned Counsel for accused-appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully scrutinized the material available on record. 9. It was contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence available on record to prove that the accused was the person who had fired the gun which caused injuries to Pokar Ram. It was next contended that the evidence of prosecution is not trustworthy and the witnesses have not given correct version. In the last he submitted that the injuries suffered by victim are simple in nature and not on any vital parts which may be considered in the light of intention or knowledge as specified under Section 307, IPC while considering the act of the accused and that the incident is of the year 1987 while the accused was 35 years of age and has now crossed the age of 50 who has remained in custody for a considerable period during trial after arrest. In support, he placed reliance on the cases (1) Kundan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 62 , (2) Geetam vs. State of Rajasthan, 1982 (6) RCC 282, (3) Mani Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1988 CrLR 342 (Raj.), and (4) Nenu Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 CrLR (Raj.) 271. 10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment and order of the learned trial Court. 10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment and order of the learned trial Court. It was contended that the findings which have been recorded by the learned Court below prove the guilt of the accused-appellant, therefore, no interference is required to be made in the Judgment and order passed by learned trial Judge which is based on proper appreciation of evidence. 11. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us. 12. It is to be seen that in the present matter the incident took place in the year 1986 and now more than 18 years have elapsed. It is further to be seen that the injuries sustained by Pokar Ram on his fingers and thigh were of simple nature. Thus, merely for the reason that the accused is alleged to have used a gun that by itself is not sufficient to bring the offence one to be under Section 307 of the IPC. 13. In the case of Mani Ram (Supra), where the pistol shots were found on non-vital parts of the body and the injuries were simple in nature, this Court found proved in the circumstances that Section 324 was only made out and not one which may fall under Section 307 of the IPC. The Court referred to a decision of Allahabad High Court reported in Bhagwan Din & Ors. vs. State, AIR 1967 All. 580 , wherein it was held that the mere fact that a firearm was used to cause injuries will not bring the case under Section 307, IPC and there can be no presumption that the accused intended to cause death because he used a firearm which caused hurt. The intention of the accused persons has to be established from either the nature of his act actually committed by him or from other surrounding circumstances. Where injury has actually been caused to the victim, the prosecution while attempting to establish that the real intention of the accused was to cause an injury or the nature which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or was so imminently dangerous that it would cause death had further to establish the intention or knowledge of the accused as contemplated in Section 307, IPC. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and not on the accused. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and not on the accused. In the instant case also, the gun was fired and some of the pallets injured Pokar Ram and the injuries sustained are simple in nature as per the statement of Dr. B.K. Dabda. 14. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 307 IPC is not liable to be sustained and instead the accused is required to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. The offence of the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act has been fully established. 15. In the result, I partly accept this appeal. The conviction and sentence awarded against the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC is altered and instead he is held guilty of the offence under Section 324, IPC and for this offence he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The conviction of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act is maintained but the sentence awarded is reduced from one year to the period already undergone by him. Accused appellant is on bail. He need not surrender the bail bonds. 16. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.