JUDGMENT : B.K. Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7th December, 2012 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl passed in Criminal Trial No.1684/2006 (State of Mizoram v. Lalmuanpuia). By the said judgment, the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC. However, he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Upon such conviction, he has been awarded with the punishment of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 24th December, 2006, the accused/appellant belonging to 3rd BN of Mizoram Armed Police (MAP) had shot and injured, the son of the first informant, at around 9:00 PM by using his service rifle AK-47 and that the injured succumbed to his injuries. On receipt of the FIR lodged on 25th December, 2006, Marpara Police Station Case No.11/2006 was registered under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. With the registration of the FIR, the police swung into action and carried out the investigation. Seizure etc. were also made. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet having been filed, in consideration of the same, charge was framed against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The charge being explained to the accused/appellant, he pleaded not guilty of the same and claimed to be tried. Accordingly trial started, during which the prosecution examined 9(nine) witnesses including the Investigation Officer and the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination. The accused also examined himself as DW-1. He was also examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. 3. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record having convicted the accused/appellant, he has preferred this appeal from jail. 4. We have heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Amicus Curiae representing the accused/appellant. We have also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. 5. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the ingredients of convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC being missing in this case, the conviction of the accused/appellant under the said Section is not sustainable in law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, submits that the accused/appellant having committed the crime with a predetermined mind, no interference is called for in respect of the impugned judgment. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, submits that the accused/appellant having committed the crime with a predetermined mind, no interference is called for in respect of the impugned judgment. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record. 8. The accused/appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC denied that he had gone after the deceased. Answering the question No.9 that according to PW-5 he had seen the deceased coming out of the house of another person and also saw the accused/appellant shooting at him, the accused/ appellant, while denying the same, stated that he did not intentionally shot at the deceased. According to him, some young boys were after him before the rifle was triggered off. Answering the question No.15 as to whether he had anything to say, the accused/appellant repeating his earlier answer again said that he did not have intention to shot at the deceased. He stated that while he had gone to the shop to buy cigarette and snacks, unfortunately some young boys assaulted him without any reason. He also regretted with the incident that took place. 9. PW-2 in his deposition stated that he found the accused carrying his service arm, namely, AK-47, running towards the place where he was sitting along with others. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not know as to whether the deceased had challenged the accused for a fair fight. He also stated that he along with others tried to stop them from fighting each other. 10. PW-8 in his deposition stated that while the deceased was enquiring about the matter, the accused/appellant fired at him. In his cross-examination, he denied having any knowledge regarding any differences between the boys of his village and the MAP personnel. He also stated that he did not know whether there was any quarrel between the boys including the deceased in one hand and the MAP personnel on the other hand. He also stated that he did not meet the deceased on 24th December, 2006 prior to the incident. He also further stated that he was not aware as to whether the victim had challenged the accused/appellant for a fair fight. PW-9 also stated in his deposition about seeing the accused/appellant shooting at the deceased. He also stated that he did not meet the deceased on 24th December, 2006 prior to the incident. He also further stated that he was not aware as to whether the victim had challenged the accused/appellant for a fair fight. PW-9 also stated in his deposition about seeing the accused/appellant shooting at the deceased. In his cross-examination, he denied that he did not say before the police that he did not see the accused shooting at the victim. Significantly he also denied the suggestion that the victim did not try to assault the accused with a dao. 11. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who in his deposition stated that the rifle bearing model AK-47 if fitted with bullets would fire 3(three) bullets in one press of the trigger. PW-11 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination. In his cross-examination, he stated thus:- "1. There were two entry wound and exit wound. 2. Since there was no charring, the victim must have not been shot from short range. However, I cannot say the exact distance. 3. The inlet wound was not charred." 12. PW-12 is another police personnel, who in his deposition, stated about his visit to the place of occurrence on receipt of the information. He also stated that the assailant, i.e. the accused/appellant, surrendered with the weapon. The accused/appellant examined himself as DW-1. He in his deposition narrating the incident stated as to how some boys had confronted and assaulted him. According to his statement, they also tried to snatch away his rifle. It was because of the said scuffle, the rifle triggered off. He also stated that the deceased was holding a dao. According to him, he also sustained injuries on his person and that had the gun not triggered off, he would have lost his life at the hands of those local boys. 13. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, they are not very material for a discussion in this appeal. From the discussions of the above evidence what has emerged is that there was some sort of quarrel with the local boys and so also with the deceased. In fact it is in the evidence that there was a fight between the two groups. From the discussions of the above evidence what has emerged is that there was some sort of quarrel with the local boys and so also with the deceased. In fact it is in the evidence that there was a fight between the two groups. While it is true that there was insignificant gap between the fight and the actual incident of firing, but at the same time it cannot be said that the accused/appellant committed the crime with pre-meditation and intention of killing the deceased so as to be punished under Section 302 IPC. In Our considered view, it will be an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-1 for which maximum penalty is for imprisonment for life or for a term which is extendable to 10(ten) years. Once it is held that the accused/appellant is liable for conviction under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302 IPC, the quantum of punishment also will have to be dealt with. It is submitted by the Mr. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned Amicus Curiae that the accused/appellant had family with three children and aged parents. 14. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met if the accused/appellant is provided with the penalty of imprisonment for 10(ten) years. The period he had already undergone shall stand adjusted with the modified penalty of 10(ten) years of rigorous imprisonment. The fine, which has been imposed vide the impugned judgment & order dated 7th December, 2012 shall remain the same. 15. While appreciating the services rendered by Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Amicus Curiae, it is hereby provided that he will be entitled to a hearing fee of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred), which shall be paid to him by the Legal Services Authority, State of Mizoram, upon production of a copy of this order, which the Registry shall furnish to him free of cost.