JUDGEMENT Gopal Prasad, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the State. 2. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged that while the informant Mano Devi (P.W. 5) was sitting in her room then the accused persons came and Karu @ Pramod abused and fired causing injury to the informant and when on the sound of firing the mother of the informant ran away. The accused has also fired causing injury on her person. It is alleged that about three months back Karu @ Pramod has cultivated the land of the mother for which there was verbal altercation on which Karu has threatened to kill. On hulla various persons came. The fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 5) lodged and during trial P.Ws. 4 and 5 supported the prosecution case. The mother of the informant also supported the prosecution case. The witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 corroborated the case of the prosecution that they reached the place of occurrence, just after the occurrence, the informant disclosed the name of this Appellant who fired. The doctor found the corresponding injury of fire arm. The investigating officer also comes to support the prosecution case and injury report. 4. On considering the facts and circumstances, the trial Court convicted and sentence the Appellant, as stated above. 5. The learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are only formal witness and the occurrence is of the year 1995 and no previous conviction has been proved and, hence, the Appellant is entitled for relief under Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Counsel, appearing as amicus curiae, has submitted that there is allegation of firing and injury. 6. P.Ws. 5 and 7 who have supported the prosecution case, P.W. 6 was injured and P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have corroborated that just after the occurrence when they reached there, the informant disclosed about the occurrence. The doctor has also found corresponding injury and the investigating officer has also supported the prosecution case. 7. 6. P.Ws. 5 and 7 who have supported the prosecution case, P.W. 6 was injured and P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have corroborated that just after the occurrence when they reached there, the informant disclosed about the occurrence. The doctor has also found corresponding injury and the investigating officer has also supported the prosecution case. 7. Hence, I perused the record and find and hold that there is no merit in this appeal. There is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution. However, having regard to the fact that occurrence is of the year 1995 and the matter concerned with the land dispute and the Appellant has remained in jail for three years, during the investigation and appeal, hence, the Appellant is entitled for benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Appellant is ordered to be released on executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year for keeping peace and good behaviour and shall appear as and when required to face sentence. 8. With these observations and directions, this appeal is disposed off.