JUDGMENT By Court: The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2002 passed by Sri Mishri Lal Choudhary, learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 1990, by which judgment the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant Sanjay Mahto guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, hence sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However the appellant was acquitted under the charges under Sections 148/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of First Information Report given by informant-injured Rajeshwar Singh, P.W 7 on 09.11.1989 at 6:30 P.M. in the evening stating therein that he has got land at village Thema and since long they have got land dispute with Mathura Prasad Yadav and others. Cases are still pending in Daltonganj. On the same date at about 3:30 in the evening accused Sanjay Mahto with gun in his hand, Binod Mahto with danda, Lalbihari Mahto with danda, Mathura Prasad Yadav with danda, Bandhu Munda with danda all came on his land at village Thema and started cutting the paddy crop. When he asked them not to cut paddy then they became furious and Sanjay fired from his gun in order to cause his death and due to injury he started bleeding. Apart from the aforesaid persons, there were five or six persons. The informant stated that all the aforesaid named accused were armed with gun, lathi and they came with common intention to caused the death. On the basis of fardbeyan police registered a case under Sections 147/148/149/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet under aforesaid sections and since Section 307 was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Judge held the trial against the aforesaid named appellant Sanjay Mahto who was found guilty as stated above. 3. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that except the informant P.W. 7 and two related witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 no other witnesses supported the fact that the firing was done by the appellant Sanjay and as such his conviction and sentence is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He has also submitted that prosecution witness themselves admitted that the land belonged to the accused persons and the informant party came there and hence they were aggressor and as such the conviction of the sole appellant can be bad in law. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that even if, it is accepted that the land belong to the accused and the informant-party were aggressor, the appellant had no right to cause injury on the vital part of the body and hence the conviction is justified and it requires no interference by this court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the state and going through the evidences, I find that the prosecution case has been fully supported by the P.W. 1Bal Kishun Singh, P.W. 7 informant Rajeshwar Singh and P.W. 8 Ganesh Singh who is the independent witness. P.W. 1 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 3:30 P.M. he had gone to see the land of the informant Rajeshwar Singh at village Thema alongwith Ganesh Singh and found that Sanjay Mahto, Binod Mahto and four or five other persons were cutting the crop. Sanjay Mahto had gun in his hand. He fired from the gun causing injury on the face, neck and chest of the informant Rajeshwar Singh. He fell down and became unconscious then he was taken to hospital by Ganesh Singh. He stated that land of Khata No. 24 & 25 belongs to the informant Rajeshwar Singh. He cultivated the same. In his cross-examination he stated that before they reached, the accused persons has started cutting the crop and Rajeshwar Singh went there and asked them not to do the same then suddenly firing was done by Sanjay Mahto. After firing he ran away from the place of occurrence. He cultivated the same. In his cross-examination he stated that before they reached, the accused persons has started cutting the crop and Rajeshwar Singh went there and asked them not to do the same then suddenly firing was done by Sanjay Mahto. After firing he ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W. 7 has supported the prosecution case at length and stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to see his paddy field at village Thema then he saw that about 10-15 persons along with Sanjay Mahto, Lalbihari Mahto, Binod Mahto, Mathura Prasad Yadav are cutting his crop. Sanjay Mahto had gun in his hand and other accused Lalbihari Mahto, Binod Mahto, Mathura Prasad had lathi in their hand then he told why he is cutting their crops whereupon Sanjay Mathto fired from his gun causing injury, he fell down and became unconscious. He regained conscious in hospital. He identified accused persons in Court. In his cross-examination he admitted that the land dispute between them is going on since 1980. At para 7 he stated that in 1989 he had cultivated the land. In para 10 he said that receipts are being granted in the name of his father with regard to said land. In para 11 he also stated that he was talking with accused persons. Suddenly the appellants Sanjay Mahto came in front and fired upon him causing injury on his head, chest and neck. He became unconscious. P.W. 8 is an independent witness. He has stated that on the date of occurrence Rajeshwar Singh at about 3:30 in the evening saw that the accused Sanjay Mahto, Binod Mahto, Bandhu Munda more than 15-20 persons came there. Sanjay with gun in his hand and other lathi and danda. They were cutting the crop. When Rajeshwar Singh asked them not to cut the crop then Sanjay fired upon him causing injury on the eye, head, chest and arm of the informant Rajeshwar Singh. He was taken the hospital by them. In his cross examination he also supported that the adjacent land which is at the distant of just 5 “jari” . In para 6 he has stated that he has no relation with Rajeshwar Singh. 6. He was taken the hospital by them. In his cross examination he also supported that the adjacent land which is at the distant of just 5 “jari” . In para 6 he has stated that he has no relation with Rajeshwar Singh. 6. It appears that other witnesses namely P.W. 2,3,5 & 7 have admitted the occurrence but they stated that they had not seen as to who fired upon the informant Rajeshwar Singh. P.W. 2 Chandradeo Nonia stated that on the date of occurrence he was present there but he did not see the fighting. In his cross-examination he said that somebody had fired from the gun. He also stated that the land was in possession of the accused persons. P.W. 5 who was declared hostile by the prosecution also stated that when the accused persons were cutting crop then the informant came and started abusing the accused. In the meanwhile fire was done. P.W. 6 was also declared hostile as, he stated that he left the place of occurrence before fighting took place. Thus, other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case, the defence witnesses have also admitted that occurrence took place. It is important to note that doctor P.W. 10 found fire arm injury. P.W. 12 on the person of the informant found as many as five injuries. All injuries were fire arm injuries. Two injuries were on neck, chest, eye and cheek. The injury on head went on the skull and the left side. Although the injuries were simple in nature but all the bullets were found inside the skull, face and other part of the body. The X-Ray examination proved and shows multiple, small radio opaque, metallic shadow on left side of skull and face. P.W. 10 & 11 who are Mukhiya of the village have also supported the prosecution case. Thus after going through entire prosecution evidence I find that no doubt it is proved that lands may be in the possession of the accused or the informant but they were cutting the crop and it is also relevant that the dispute with regard to the land was going and informant claim that he had cultivated that year and when he objected the accused appellant Sanjay Mahto fired upon him by his gun and caused injuries on chest, hand, finger of the informant. It appears from the evidence of doctor P.W. 12 that all the injuries were also simple in nature. The doctor very clearly stated in para 10 that no blacking, charring or singing of hairs were found on the body of the injury that means firing was done from a long distance. Since, the accused with knowledge that it may caused serious injuries fired upon the informant by gun, the offences committed by him will come under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and not Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In that view of the matter the sole appellant Sanjay Mahto is convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo four months which he has already undergone during trial and appeal and he has to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty thousand) in default he will undergo S.I. for six months. In case of fine being realized Rs. 15,000/-(Fifteen thousand) will be paid to the injured informant P.W. 7 and Rs. 5000/-to the State treasury. Since, the appellant is on bail the Trial Court is directed to issue warrant of arrest on the appellant for serving out the sentence. With aforesaid modification in the conviction of the sentence the appeal is allowed in part.