JUDGEMENT Gopal Prasad, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment or ten years and, further, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. It has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the occurrence is of the year 1995 and the appellant has remained in jail from 30.10.1995 to 13.10.1999 and released from jail 2 when the order passed for the release of the appellant by this Honble Court, during the pendency of the appeal, and, hence, contended that the appellant has suffered due to protracted litigation as well as remained in jail for about four years. 3. Perused the record. There is allegation of firing causing injury to informant and rickshaw puller and the trial Court, after considering the evidence of the injured and the doctor, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above. 4. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances that the appellant has remained in jail for about four years and the occurrence is of the year 1995, i.e., more than fifteen years and the appellant suffered a lot, hence, the interest just shall be served by sentencing the appellant for the period already undergone. 5. With this modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed.