JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No.24/2003 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant as under: Section 341 I.P.C. - 15 days' S.I. Section 307 I.P.C. - 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' R.I. Section 392 I.P.C. - 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1= months' R.I. Section 27 Arms Act - 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 1 month's R.I. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 9.5.2002, Parcha Bayan of P.W.5 Suresh Kumar was recorded, in which he stated that on 8.5.2002 in the evening at about 6.30, he along with Har Lal, Ramanand, Subeh Singh and Madal Lal (employees of the liquor contractor of Bhadra) reached = kms. before Chidiya Gandhi. At that time, Jai Singh Beniwal, Satyawan, Dharmpal Bagdi, Vajir Singh, Ramniwas alias Mandia and 4-5 other persons stopped their Jeep No.HR-16C-1411 by bringing their Tata Sumo Car of blue colour in froint of their carand Satyawan demanded money. When Ramanand and Harlal refused to give money, at that time, all the aforesaid persons took out the pistols and at the call of Jai Singh Dharmpal Bagdi and Ramniwas alias Mandia opened fire from their pistols and pallets hit the fingers of left hand and right hand side of nose. It was further alleged that the complainant party ran away towards village Chidiya Gandhi to save their lives, but the accused persons pursued them making fires at some distance and took away their jeep. 4. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, an FIR was registered at the Police Station, Bhirani for offences under sections 307, 382, 341, 147, 148, and 149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. After investigation, the police filed challan against the Dharmpal, Jaiveer, Sundar Singh Chandra Singh under Section 307, 392, 341, 148 and 149 I.P.C. and against Ramniwas alias Mandia, challan was filed later on under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on 23.9.2003. 6. 5. After investigation, the police filed challan against the Dharmpal, Jaiveer, Sundar Singh Chandra Singh under Section 307, 392, 341, 148 and 149 I.P.C. and against Ramniwas alias Mandia, challan was filed later on under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on 23.9.2003. 6. During the course of trial, Dharmpal alias Bagdi died on 1.7.2004 and therefore, the proceedings against him were dropped. 7. The learned trial Court framed charges for offences under sections 148, 307, 392 and 341 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against Ramniwas alias Mandia for offences under Sections 148, 307/149, 392 and 341 I.P.C. against accused , Jaiveer, Chandra Singh and Sunder Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. At the trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses in support of his case. The accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against them, but did not examine any witness in their defence. 9. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 21.4.2009 while acquitting the co-accused persons Jaiveer Singh, Sundar Singh and Chandra Singh convicted and sentenced the appellant Ramniwas alias Mandia as above. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. D.L. Motsara submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly weighed the evidence available on record and on the same set of evidence, while convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences, the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused persons of the aforesaid offences. In the alternative the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the statement of P.W.20 Harlal and looking to the fact that the appellant has remained in custody for about 2 years, 1 month and 15 days, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Per contra, the learned PP submitted that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence available on record in right perspective. The learned PP also submitted that from the statements of P.W.4 Ramannd, P.W.5 Suresh Kumar and P.W.20 Harlal, it is clearly established that the appellant had made gun shot which hit the injured Suresh, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is perfectly justified. However, the learned PP does not seriously oppose the contention of the appellant about reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him. However, he requested for enhancement of fine. 12. However, the learned PP does not seriously oppose the contention of the appellant about reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him. However, he requested for enhancement of fine. 12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the impugned judgment and gone through the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences is perfectly justified and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 13. P.W.4 Ramanand, who was accompanying the injured at the time of incident has clearly stated that Ramniwas Mandia and Dharampal had shot gun fire towards them, which hit Suresh near his nose and on finger. Similarly, P.W.5 Suresh Kumar, injured has also stated that the appellant opened fire towards him, which hit him. Other eye witnesses have also supported their version. Considering the evidence available on record, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be upheld and the same is accordingly confirmed. 14. However, on the issue of sentence awarded, in view of the fact that the appellant has remained in custody from 8.9.2003 to 13.12.2003 and since 21.4.2009, the appellant is behind bars and thus, the appellant has already undergone the sentence of 2 years, 1 months and 15 days by now and in view of the statement of P.W.20 Harlal, who in his cross-examinations has admitted that only one gun shot was made and that was attributed to Dharmpal, who has since expired and in view of the fact that both the parties were admittedly wine contractors who had rivalries and also in view of recovery of jeep No.HR-16/1411 from the site of wine contract of complainant party vide recovery memo (Ex;P/24) and looking to the young age of the appellant who is about 27 years of age and that he opened fire at the call of Jai Singh who has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15. 15. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed with the modification of the impugned judgment of court below to the extent that while upholding the conviction of the accused appellant for offences under Sections 341, 307, 392 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the sentence awarded to the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed by the learned court below shall further stand increased by Rs. 5,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period of 45 days which may be paid to the injured Suresh as compensation. If the said amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the accused appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******