JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - Both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 447 and 324/34. IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years under Section 324/34, IPC. However, no separate sentence has been passed under Section 447, IPC. The appellant No. 1 has further been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for three years by a judgment dated 20.9.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge. Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant Pashupati Singh (PW 6) was that their property had been partitioned and they were all living in separate houses. However, there was a case in consolidation between the accused persons and Bunni Lal Singh over a piece of land, which was decided in favour of Bunni Lal Singh. On the date of occurrence i.e. 16.3.1984 the accused persons quarreled with Bunni Lal Singh over the said land. Appellant Shankar Singh had a licensed gun in his hand. When Asharfi Singh came to pacify then on the orders of Shyam Behari Singh appellant Shankar Singh fired, which caused injury to Asharfi Singh, Shivjee Singh (PW 5) and his wife Lalti Devi (PW 1) and Bunni Lal Singh, who later on died before trial. All the injured persons were removed to Hajipur Sadar Hospital and they were treated by PW 7 Dr. R.B. Thakur. 3. The defence denied the occurrence and stated that in fact on the date and time of occurrence Bunni Lal Singh and his sons had actually constructed a Palani over the disputed land, at which the accused persons had protested. It is they, who attacked them with Hasua, bomb etc causing injuries to them, upon which Hajipur P.S. Case No. 40 of 1984 was instituted. They were further convicted by the trial Court. To prove this fact they brought on record the certified copy of the documents. 4. During trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all in support of his case. Out of whom, PW 1 Lalti Devi, who was an injured witness, stated that on the date of occurrence while she was cooking food in her house and came out on the sound of altercation appellant Shankar Singh fired from his gun causing injury to her, her husband Asharfi Singh and father-in-law Bunni Lal Singh. 5. Out of whom, PW 1 Lalti Devi, who was an injured witness, stated that on the date of occurrence while she was cooking food in her house and came out on the sound of altercation appellant Shankar Singh fired from his gun causing injury to her, her husband Asharfi Singh and father-in-law Bunni Lal Singh. 5. PW 5 Shiv Shankar Singh is the next injured witness, who also stated that when he came to the place of occurrence, he saw the two accused persons and that appellant Shankar Singh fired injuring four of them. 6. PW 2 Uma Devi is the widow of Bunni Lal Singh and an eye-witness account of the occurrence. PW 3 Binda Singh is an independent witness, who also supported the factum of the occurrence. PW 4 Sumitra Devi is another eye-witness and supported the case of the prosecution. PW 6 Pashupati Singh is the Informant, who reproduces the version given out in the First Information Report. PW 7 is Dr. Ram Bachan Thakur, who examined the injured Asharfi Singh. Lalti Devi and Shivji Singh and found pellet injuries on their person. PW 8 Munna Singh is a formal police witness, who merely submitted the charge-sheet. 7. On going through the evidence of the eye-witnesses including an independent witness find that there is consistent statement that the parties altercated between themselves and thereafter the appellant Shankar Singh fired causing simple injuries on the person of the three injured. The doctor (PW 7) also corroborated the injuries on their persons thus leaving no scope for acquittal of the appellants. Hence the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts. However, considering that one of the appellant has remained in custody for about a month and even in 1997 he was 60 years of age I would be inclined to reduce the sentence of all the appellants to one already undergone by them during trial. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence as mentioned above. Appeal dismissed.