JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.7.1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Sessions Trial No.88 of 1991 by which all the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 to undergo R.I. for eight years. The appellant Chaturi Ram has been further convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo imprisonment, but no separate sentence has been passed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants have also been convicted under Sections 448 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo R.I. for six months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case has been instituted by Ambika Mehta alleging therein that on 1.11.1990 he was sitting at his door at about 6-30 p.m. when abovenamed four appellants surrounded him. Appellant no. 1 asked him to return the money which he had given him for purchasing a piece of land. Immediately thereafter appellant no.1 fired at him. On seeing the appellant firing at her husband, Gita Devi (wife of the informant) rushed to save him and received fire arm injury on her face. The neighbours and villagers gathered at the place of occurrence and informed the police. 3. In this case, six witnesses have been examined. I shall begin with the evidence of the doctor(P.W.6). Gita Devi was examined at Chause Hospital and referred to Purnea after she was given first aid. Doctor at Chause Hospital found that she had received fire arm injury on her left side of the face. Her maidible and auxiliary bone of the left side of the face had been fractured and a recommendation was made for an X-ray. The doctor reserved his opinion regarding the nature of the injuries. After X-ray report he found that the injury was grievous in nature. The doctor has also stated on being cross-examined that Gita Devi had difficulty in giving her statement. The doctor in reply to the question to be made to him has explained that Gita Devi’s head and face was wrapped with bandage and it was difficult for her to talk continuously for five minutes without pain. 4. Now I shall examine the evidence of informant Ambika Mehta (P.W.1). He had supported the prosecution case as made out by him in the fardbeyan. 4. Now I shall examine the evidence of informant Ambika Mehta (P.W.1). He had supported the prosecution case as made out by him in the fardbeyan. In his fardbeyan he said that the occurrence took place because he had purchased a piece of land from Gajendra Singh, an advocate of Saharsa, for a sum of Rs.11,000/-. Prior to the Kewala, the accused persons had expressed their desire to purchase the said land, as they had cultivated the land on behalf of Sri Singh. Having lost the opportunity to purchase the said land the present occurrence took place. This witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing could be extracted from him which can be considered for the purpose of undermining credibility and truthfulness of his statement. 5. The next witness Gita Devi (P.W.2) has supported the occurrence. She has stated that she lives by herself in the village and has to perform all the works of her house as her husband is working outside the State. She has also supported the genesis of the occurrence and has stated that her husband has already paid the consideration amount to the said landlord for the purchase of the land which had irked the appellants and caused them to commit such act. 6. In this context, I may say that it has been recorded that the B.D.O. had taken the dying declaration suspecting that she will not survive. The trial court has stated in its findings that the said statement is not on record. It thus appears that the statement has not been exhibited although the statement has been supported by this witness in her examination-in-chief. In her evidence at para-3 she has stated that appellants are present in court and she identified all of them. 7. Manohar Sihgh (P.W.3) is an independent witness and he has been declared hostile whereas Bishundeo Yadav (P.W.4) has been tendered by the prosecution. Ramayan Ram (P.W.5) is the investigating officer of this case and he has fully supported the investigation made by him. He has said that he has taken statement of all the witnesses as mentioned in the F.I.R. At para-4 he has stated that Gita Devi had given her dying declaration before the B.D.O but the same has not been mentioned in the case diary. He has stated that dying declaration was recorded by the B.D.O. and he has only taken her re-statement. He has stated that dying declaration was recorded by the B.D.O. and he has only taken her re-statement. This witness also admits that Gita Devi was speaking softly and very slowly at the time when she gave her dying declaration. On the basis of the aforesaid evidences, the appellants have been convicted. 8. On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that injury report does not support the manner of the occurrence. He said that immediately after the query, the appellants had fired at the chest of the informant which had hit the face of the informant’s wife. Rather it is submitted that the injury, if at all, ought to have been on her back as it said that she threw herself in front of her husband. The explanation would be Gita Devi on seeing her husband was to be shot dead stood in front of him and thus injury on the face was caused. There is no evidence and any suggestion in this case that injury received by Gita Devi was caused by some other means or at some other place. As such, the argument on behalf of the appellants has to be rejected. 9. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that no case is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The fact of this particular case is that the appellants threatened the informant and immediately thereafter fired at him which indicates that they had come with an intention to kill the informant. The fact is that by intervention, his wife, received the injury on the fateful night. This Court concludes that the appellant had come armed with fire arm, in order to cause injury to the informant. It is only a matter of providence that he was saved. Lastly, it has been argued that appellant no.1 has remained in custody for one year and two months, whereas other appellants against whom there is no overt act have remained in custody for about fourteen days and therefore, this Court should not send the appellants back to custody after a gap of twenty years. It is submitted that they have been pursuing the case, with the sword of conviction hanging on their head for the past two decades which is sufficient punishment for them. 10. It is submitted that they have been pursuing the case, with the sword of conviction hanging on their head for the past two decades which is sufficient punishment for them. 10. Considering the lapse of time since this occurrence took place, this Court upholds the conviction, but alters the sentences as period undergone, this Court gives a further direction to Chaturi Ram, appellant no.1, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to Gita Devi. The other appellants are also to pay fine for a sum of Rs.1,000/- each to Gita Devi. The money should be deposited in the trial court within a period of four months after valid service of notice to the appellants. In default of payment, appellant no.1 should be required to undergo R.I. for six months. Similar notice should be issued to Gita Devi regarding deposit of the money so that she can receive and accept the money. 11. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid alteration in sentence. 12. The appellants will be discharged from liability of their bail bonds after paying the fine. She should issue notice to the appellants, who shall pay the fine within a period of four months of valid service of notice, in default of which they shall undergo R.I. for six months. A similar notice may be sent to Gita Devi so that she may receive the fine deposited in court. Appeal dismissed.