Ramesh Sinha,J.:- Affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.1982 passed by IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Fatehpur in Session Trial No. 400 of 1981 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused Satsen and Mathura had old enmity with the complainant and accused Rajuwa and Hari Singh were their associates. They were on look out to kill him, hence they attempted several times to commit his murder. On the date of occurrence, when the complainant reached near the field of Satnarain at about 8 a.m. while proceeding towards his fields followed by his brothers Rama Shankar and Kripal Shankar, accused Satsen and Rajuwa armed with guns and Mathura and Hari Singh armed with pistols, appeared and Satsen and Mathura abused him and asked him to stop and when the complainant and his brothers raised hue and cry the accused fired gun shots and pistol shots at him. Hearing shrieks of the complainant and his brothers, Daddu son of Kashi and others appeared there, hence the accused left the place of occurrence. 5. After the occurrence, the complainant was taken to the police station in a bullock cart where he lodged the F.I.R. at about 10 a.m. on 12.2.1981. Head constable Jeet Bahadur prepared chick report and the G.D. report Ex. Ka.1 and 2 on the basis of oral information and the injured was sent to the hospital for medical examination. Dr. G.S. Gaur, P.W.4 carried out medical examination of the injured on 12.2.1981 at about 1:10 p.m. and he found the following injuries on his persons:- "(1) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. depth could not be measured on left side of anterior surface of neck 14.5. cm. above the left nipple. No blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted and lacerated. (2) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. depth could not be measured on left side of chest 4 cm. above the left nipple at 7 o'clock position. No blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted. (3) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. No blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted and lacerated. (2) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. depth could not be measured on left side of chest 4 cm. above the left nipple at 7 o'clock position. No blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted. (3) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. muscle deep on left side of axillary line 19 cms. below the left nipple. No blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted and lacerated. (4) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. depth could not be measured on left side of scapular region 5 cms. from the lateral end of left clavicle. No blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted. (5) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. depth could not be measured on left side of back at the level of interior angle of left scapula. No blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted. (6) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. depth could not be measured on left side of chest 7 cms. below axilla. No blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted and lacerated. (7) One fire arm wound of entry 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. muscle deep on posterior lateral surface of left arm 10 cm. below the shoulder joint. It is simple injured. No blackening and tattooing. All the six injuries were kept under observations. No 7 was simple. All the seven injuries were produced by firearm weapon. Duration was fresh." 6. In his opinion, the injuries could be inflicted to the injured at about 8 a.m. on 12.2.1981. Injuries no. 1 to 4 and 6 were on vital part and were dangerous to life. 7. Investigation of the case was entrusted to the S.I. Nanhey Lal Misra, P.W. 6, who after receiving the necessary papers on 13.2.1981, started investigation in this case immediately. On 14.2.1981, he had gone to the place of occurrence and interrogated the witnesses, Rama Shanker and others and prepared the site plan, Ex. Ka. 4 after inspecting the site at the instance of the witnesses. The accused were not available. On 25.2.1981, he interrogated the complainant Raghunandan in Civil Hospital, Fathepur. On 14.2.1981, he had gone to the place of occurrence and interrogated the witnesses, Rama Shanker and others and prepared the site plan, Ex. Ka. 4 after inspecting the site at the instance of the witnesses. The accused were not available. On 25.2.1981, he interrogated the complainant Raghunandan in Civil Hospital, Fathepur. He kept on searching the accused till 3.3.1981 but they were not traceable, hence he submitted the report under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, its investigation was taken up by S.I. Jaikaran Singh after receiving the order of the court on 9.3.1981. He executed the proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. On 11.3.1982, the S.O. Jaikaran Singh submitted the charge sheet against all the accused while they were absconding vide Ex. Ka.5. 8. After submission of charge sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the accused to the court of Session on 20.7.1981 for their trial under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 9. On 4.1.1982, the court below framed the aforesaid charges against the accused and read over and explained the same to them in Hindi but they pleaded not guilty to the crime and claimed to be tried. 10. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity with the complainant. According to them, the complainant might have received injuries while fighting with his gambler associates as he was in the habit of gambling. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants in spite of his best effort could not point out any infirmity in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in order to show that the conviction of the appellants was against the evidence on record and the judgment and order convicting the appellants be set aside. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that the appellant Satsen is 66 years of age and he is suffering from some kidney ailments and is getting regular treatment for the same. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced some documentary evidence with respect to the same. He further submits that the appellant has already settled with his family and to send him to jail after 32 years when the incident took place, it would be too harsh and further his family would be put to great hardships. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced some documentary evidence with respect to the same. He further submits that the appellant has already settled with his family and to send him to jail after 32 years when the incident took place, it would be too harsh and further his family would be put to great hardships. The appellant has already been in jail for about four months in all during trial and after his conviction by the trial court and after he was released on bail by this Court during pendency of this appeal. Hence the rest of the sentence of the appellant be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of the sentence. 13. On the other hand learned AGA has submitted that trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was sufficient against the appellant for his conviction. 14. From the perusal of the record and the evidence of P.W.3, who is the informant as well as injured and other prosecution witness, the prosecution has proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Hence the conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld. 15. Considering the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the age and ailment of the appellant and taking into account that the incident is 33 years old and the appeal has come up for hearing after 32 years, it is directed that rest of the sentence of the appellant converted into fine of Rs. 30,000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellant in the Court of C.J.M. Fatehpur within four months from today. Out of which, Rs. 25,000/- shall be given to the injured Raghunandan, if alive, or his legal heirs, if any, and Rs. 5,000/- shall go to the State. 16. In default of payment of fine, as directed above, the appellant shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence, as ordered by the trial Court. 17. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. 18. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to CJM , Fatehpur for its compliance. _______________