JUDGMENT : Renu Agarwal, J. 1. Present appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant, Lalaram, against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-7, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 586 of 2001 : State Vs. Suresh and another arising out of Crime No. 160 of 2001, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi; Sessions Trial No. 587 of 2001 : State Vs. Suresh, arising out of Crime No. 162 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi; and Sessions Trial No. 588 of 2001: State Vs. Lalaram, arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2001 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, police station Sandila, district Hardoi, whereby the appellant, Lalaram, was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, failing which to undergo additional 18 months' rigorous imprisonment; under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo additional 8 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, failing which to undergo 9 months' rigorous imprisonment; and under Section Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, failing which to undergo additional 4 months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 13.5.2001, in the house of informant, namely, Udan (PW-2), rituals of marriage relating to his son Rajkapoor was going on. On that night, musical programme was also going on at the door of Bhagwandeen Yadav of his village, wherein Munni Lal Arakh son of Baldev came and informed that relative of Somnath had fallen down from the roof. After getting this information, Sukhdeo (P.W.1), Vinod (P.W.2), Sarvesh (P.W.5), Munna Lal (P.W.12), Sunil (deceased, son-in-law of the deceased) and other villagers had rushed to the spot. In the interregnum period, someone fired at 9:30 p.m., as a consequence of which Sukhdeo (PW-1), Vinod (P.W.2), Sarvesh (P.W.5), Munna (P.W.12) and Sunil (deceased, son-in-law of the informant) got shot and were injured. In the interregnum period, someone fired at 9:30 p.m., as a consequence of which Sukhdeo (PW-1), Vinod (P.W.2), Sarvesh (P.W.5), Munna (P.W.12) and Sunil (deceased, son-in-law of the informant) got shot and were injured. Immediately thereafter, they were brought through Tractor trolley to the Government Hospital, from where Sukhdeo (PW-1), Vinod (P.W.2), Sarvesh (P.W.5) and Munna (P.W.12) were referred for further treatment at Lucknow Hospital, however, Sunil (deceased, son-in-law of the informant P.W.2) died before the start of treatment in the hospital. Thereafter, informant Udan (P.W.2) got the written report scribed by Ramkumar, who after scribing it read it over to him. He, thereafter, put his signature on it and then, proceeded to Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi and lodged it. 3. The evidence of P.W.8-S.I. Khajan Lal shows that on 13.05.2001, he was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Sandila. On that date, on the basis of written report of P.W.2-Udan, a chik F.I.R. No. 73 of 2001 (Ext. Ka. 8) vide Case Crime No. 160 of 2001, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. was registered by him against the unknown persons at police station Sandila, District Hardoi. 4. The investigation of the case was conducted by P.W.15-S.I. Ashok Dixit. His evidence shows that after registration of Case Crime No. 160 of 2001, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., at police station Sandila, district Hardoi on 13.05.2001, he went to the place of occurrence and collected blood stained soil and plain soil thereon. He also seized two empty cartridges from the place of occurrence under recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 23). He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka. 24). He further deposed that S.I. Abad Ali, who was posted along with him at police station Sandila, had conducted the ‘panchayatnama’ of the dead body of the deceased Sunil and also sent it for post-mortem. The evidence of P.W.15-S.I. Ashok Dixit further shows that on 15.05.2001, when he along with police personnel including S.I. Shri Krishna Kashyap (P.W.9), Constable Nawab Singh (P.W.10) went to search the accused of Case Crime No. 16o of 2001, under Sections 302/307 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act., witnesses Munna (P.W.12) and Shiv Balak met them and stated that one accused Suresh was waiting for conveyance at the road of Gosaiganj. Immediately thereafter, he (P.W.15) along with police personnel reached there at 09:30 p.m. and caught one person, who, after interrogation, had stated his name as Suresh (co-accused) and from his possession, a country-made pistol and a cartridge was recovered. After that co-accused Suresh had stated that it was the same country-made pistol, which was used for firing upon Sukhdev with intention to kill him in the association of his friend Lala Ram who was also armed with country-made pistol. Thereafter, accused Suresh was arrested and country-made pistol and catridges were seized under recovery memo. After that on the dictation of Shri Krishna Kashyap (P.W.9), Constable Rama Shanker Singh (P.W.6) had registered Case Crime No. 162 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi on 15.05.2001 (Ext. Ka.10). P.W.15-S.I. Ashok Dixit had also stated that the investigation of Case Crime No. 162 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was conducted by S.I. Ram Avtar, who was posted along with him at police station Sandila. S.I. Ram Avtar had prepared the site plan and filed charge-sheet in connection with Case Crime No. 162 of 2001 before the Court concerned. 5. P.W.10-Nawab Singh had supported the aforesaid statement of P.W. 15 S.I. Ashok Dixit and further deposed that on 16.05.2001, he along with the Investigating Officer Ashok Dixit (P.W.15) went to search other accused (Lal Ram) and when they reached at Sandila, on the basis of information of an informer, Lal Ram (appellant) was arrested and from his possession, one country-made pistol and one cartridge was recovered. Thereafter, on the dictation of S.S.I. Jairam Yadav, recovery memo for country-made pistol and one cartridge were prepared under a recovery memo (Ext. Ka.11). On the basis of the aforesaid recovery of country-made pistol and one catridge from the possession of Lala Ram (appellant), Case Crime No. 163 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi was registered on 16.05.2001. 6. Ka.11). On the basis of the aforesaid recovery of country-made pistol and one catridge from the possession of Lala Ram (appellant), Case Crime No. 163 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi was registered on 16.05.2001. 6. The evidence of P.W.6-Rama Shaker Singh shows that on the basis of recovery of one country-made pistol and one catridge from the possession of Suresh (co-accused) and Lala Ram (appellant), he had registered Case Crime No. 162 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act on 15.05.2001 against co-accused Suresh and Case Crime No. 163 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act on 16.05.2001, at police station Sandila, district Hardoi. 7. P.W.9-S.I. Shri Krishna Kashyap had deposed before the trial Court that on 16.5.2001, he conducted the investigation of Case Crime No. 163 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. On 25.03.2001, after due investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet against Lala Ram (appellant) under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and forwarded it for submission before the Court concerned. 8. P.W.7-Vijay Narayan Singh had deposed before the trial Court that on 15.05.2001, he was posted as Circle Officer in Sandila. On that date, he took over the investigation of the case from S.H.O.-Ashok Dixit (P.W.15). On 17.06.2001, he submitted the charge-sheet before the Court concerned against both the accused, Suresh and Lala Ram. 9. Going backwards, the injuries of injured Sukhdev (P.W.1), Vinod (P.W.3), Sarvesh (P.W.5) and Munna (P.W.12) were examined on 13.05.2001, at 10:45 p.m., 10:50 p.m., 11:00 p.m. and 11:15 p.m., respectively, at Community Health Centre, Sandila, Hardoi, by Dr. Yogesh Sethi, who found the injuries on their persons as enumerated hereinbelow :- “Injury of Sukhdev Prasad aged about 32 years, son of Brij Lal (Ext. Ka. 15) I. Lacerated wound 12 cm x 5 cm x bone deep. Present on (Rt.) side chest. 7 cm laterla to (Rt.) nipple at 9 O’clock position. No blackening & tattooing present. Injury of Vinod aged about 18 years, son of Shri Laloo (Ext. Ka. 16) I. Multiple fire arm wound in an area of 17 cm x 5 cm present on (Rt.) side neck and cerebral region. Wound margin 1 cm x 0.5 cm to 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. No blackening and tattoing present. II. No blackening & tattooing present. Injury of Vinod aged about 18 years, son of Shri Laloo (Ext. Ka. 16) I. Multiple fire arm wound in an area of 17 cm x 5 cm present on (Rt.) side neck and cerebral region. Wound margin 1 cm x 0.5 cm to 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. No blackening and tattoing present. II. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area of 31 cm x 20 cm present on both side upper back and neck. Wound size margin from 4 cm x 0.5 cm to 0.5 x 0.5 cm in number of 25. No blackening and tattooing present. Injuries of Sarvesh aged about 18 years, son of Shri Shiv Mangal (Ext. Ka. 17) I. Multiple fire arm wound in an area of 20 cm x 12 cm present on (lt.) side chest 2 cm below (Lt.) nipple. Wound size margin from 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x stain deep. No blackening and tattooing present. II. Multiple fire arm wound in an area of 10 cm x 6 cm present on (Lt.) arm 7 cm above Lt. elbow joint. Wound size margin from 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 1 cm x 1 cm x skin deep. No blackening and tattooing present. Injuries of Munna Lal, aged about 35 years son of Shri Brij Lal (Ext. Ka. 18) I. A fire arm wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x M.S. deep present on Rt. side shoulder 5 cm below tip of Rt. shoulder. No blackening and tattoing present. 10. The injuries report of the aforesaid injured shows that Dr. Yogesh Sethi (not examined) had advised for x-ray and further opined that all the injuries were kept under observation. It was also opined that injuries could be caused by some fire arm; duration of the injuries were fresh; and further advised x-ray for confirmation of pellet. 11. The evidence of P.W.13-Vivek Kumar shows that in the year 2006, he was posted as Chief Pharmacist, at Community Health Centre, Sandila, District Hardoi. At that time, Dr. Yogesh Sethi was posted as Medical Surgeon in Community Health Centre, Sandila, District Hardoi. He proved injury report Ext. Ka. 15 to Ext. Ka. 18 prepared by Dr. Yogesh Sethi. 12. The injuries of injured Mahadev (P.W.4) were conducted on 14.05.2001 at 12:35 p.m. at Community Health Centre, Sandila, District Hardoi by Dr. At that time, Dr. Yogesh Sethi was posted as Medical Surgeon in Community Health Centre, Sandila, District Hardoi. He proved injury report Ext. Ka. 15 to Ext. Ka. 18 prepared by Dr. Yogesh Sethi. 12. The injuries of injured Mahadev (P.W.4) were conducted on 14.05.2001 at 12:35 p.m. at Community Health Centre, Sandila, District Hardoi by Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh (P.W.14), who found the following injuries on his person as enumerated hereinbelow :- “Injuries of injured Mahadev (P.W.4) aged about 35 years son of Vishnu I. Gun shot wound 0.2 x 0.2 cm in size 3 cm above anterior axillary found on chest. No blackening and scorching. II. Gun shot wound 0.2 x 0.2 cm in size on lateral aspect of anterior axillary found. As per the opinion of Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh (P.W.14), the injuries were simple in nature and it would be kept under observation; injuries were caused by fire arm; and duration was about ½ day old. 13. P.W.14-Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh has reiterated the aforesaid injuries caused to the injured Mahadev (P.W.4) and deposed that he conducted the medical examination of Mahadev (P.W.4) on 14.05.2001. On 14.05.2001 itself, he had issued the certified copy of the injury reports of injured Sukhdev, Munna Lal, Vinod and Sarvesh (Ext. Ka. 15 to Ext. Ka. 18) prepared by Dr. Yogesh Sethi. In cross-examination, P.W.14 deposed that injuries caused to injured Mahadev (P.W.4) could be attributable by a country-made pistol and could be attributable from a distance of one meter or 45 meters. 14. The post-mortem of the dead-body of the deceased Sunil Kumar was conducted on 14.05.2001 at 04:00 p.m., at Primary Health Centre, Sandila, Hardoi by P.W.11-Dr. K.P. Singh, who found the ante-mortem injuries on his person as enumerated hereinbelow :- “Ante-mortem injuries of Sunil Kumar, son of Murli, aged about 30 years Multiple fire arm wound of entry in an area of 42 cm x 30 cm in front of chest, both upper arm and both shoulder 15 cm above umbilicus. As per the opinion of Dr. K. P. Singh (P.W.11), the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuires. 15. It is significant to mention that Dr. As per the opinion of Dr. K. P. Singh (P.W.11), the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuires. 15. It is significant to mention that Dr. K. P. Singh (P.W.11), in his deposition before the trial Court, had reiterated the aforesaid cause of death of the deceased Sunil Kumar and had further deposed that on external examination of the deadbody of the deceased, he found that his physique was average; rigor mortis was present on both upper and lower extremities; his eyes and mouth were closed; heir of his scalp was black; and abdomen was distended with gases. On internal examination, he found that both the lungs were congested and punctured; pellets were recovered from lungs; liver was lacerated; pellets were recovered from liver. In cross-examination, P.W.11 had deposed that injuries on the dead bodies of the deceased could be attributable from a distance of more than three feet and it could be caused by a fire arm. 16. The case was committed to the Court of Session in the usual manner, where the appellant, Lala Ram and co-accused Lala Ram were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of denial. 17. During trial, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined fifteen witnesses viz. P.W.1-Sukhdev, P.W.2-Udan, P.W.3-Vinod Kumar Dhobi, P.W.4-Mahadev, P.W.5-Sarvesh Kumar, P.W.6-Constable Rama Shanker Singh, P.W.7-Vijay Narayan Singh, P.W.8-S.I. Khajan Lal, P.W.9-S.I. Sri Krishn Kashyap, P.W.10-Constable Nawab Singh, P.W.11-Dr. K.P. Singh, P.W.12-Munna Lal, P.W.13-Vivek Kumar, P.W.14-Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh and P.W.15-S.I. Ashok Dixit. 18. From the side of defense/appellant, no witness has been produced. 19. The statement of appellant, Lala Ram, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denying the allegations made in the F.I.R. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. He was plying rickshaw in Lucknow, wherefrom the police had brought him to home on 15.05.2001; after that false recovery of country-made pistol was made in police station; he was falsely implicated him. He had also stated that on the pressure of Pradhan, the police had lodged the false case against him. He was not named in the F.I.R. 20. He was plying rickshaw in Lucknow, wherefrom the police had brought him to home on 15.05.2001; after that false recovery of country-made pistol was made in police station; he was falsely implicated him. He had also stated that on the pressure of Pradhan, the police had lodged the false case against him. He was not named in the F.I.R. 20. The learned trial Court believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant, Lala Ram and co-accused Suresh vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2015 in the manner stated in paragraph-1 hereinabove. 21. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 307 and 3/25 of the Arms Act vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2015, the appellant-Lalaram has preferred the instant criminal appeal. 22. Heard Shri Manish Bajpai, learned Counsel for the convict/appellant and Ms. Smriti Sahay, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material brought on record. 23. Learned Counsel for the convict/appellant has argued that : I. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant P.W.2-Udan, Case Crime No. 160 of 2001, under Section 302, 307 I.P.C. was lodged against unknown persons. The appellant Lala Ram and co-accused Suresh were not named in the F.I.R. II. P.W.3-Vinod Kumar and P.W.4-Mahadev, who were the injured witnesses, had not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by the trial Court. III. P.W.5-Sarvesh Kumar, who was also the injured witness, had also not supported the prosecution case as he had stated in his deposition that someone had fired, as a consequence of which, he, Sukhdev, Vinod and Sunil got shot. P.W.5 had not named anyone in his deposition as to who had fired upon him, four injured persons and deceased Sunil but the learned trial Court had erred in disbelieving the statement of P.W.5 by recording the reasons that on account of fear, P.W.5 had deposed false evidence before the trial Court. IV. The deceased and five alleged injured persons had received injuries in a celebratory firing that took place in the musical programme. None had seen the appellant Lalaram to open fire at that time as P.W.2-Udan, who is the informant in this case, had not named the appellant and co-accused Suresh in causing fire arm injuries to the deceased Sunil and five accused persons, in his written report. None had seen the appellant Lalaram to open fire at that time as P.W.2-Udan, who is the informant in this case, had not named the appellant and co-accused Suresh in causing fire arm injuries to the deceased Sunil and five accused persons, in his written report. However, just to conceal the incident of celebratory firing and settled the score of political rivalry, the incident of celebratory firing was given the colour of alleged incident. V. Lastly, it has been pointed out that against the impugned order dated 15.05.2015, co-accused Suresh had earlier preferred Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015 : Suresh Vs. State of U.P. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 30.06.2016, while allowing the appeal partly, set-aside the conviction and sentence of co-accused Suresh for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act; modified his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 I.P.C.; modified the sentence of life imprisonment to the period of imprisonment for 14 years; confirmed the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. but his sentence thereunder was modified to 7 years; and confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He argued that the role of the appellant Lalaram is identical to that of co-accused Suresh, hence the benefit of the judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 (supra) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court may also be granted to the present appellant. VI. Appellant-Lalram has already undergone imprisonment as under-trial after conviction of about 15 years in jail, hence in view of judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 (supra), the instant appeal also be allowed partly. 24. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, does not dispute the fact that the judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been challenged before the higher Court and the role of the appellant Lalaram is identical to that of co-accused Suresh whose Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015 was allowed partly by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 30.06.2016. 25. 25. We have examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; the judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015 : Suresh Vs. State of U.P.; and the impugned judgment. 26. It would become manifest that the trial Court has based the conviction of the appellant Lalaram and co-accused Suresh on the ocular account furnished by injured Sukhdev (P.W.1), the informant P.W.2-Udan, injured Munna Lal (P.W.12) and that of recoveries of weapon of assault effected from the possession of the appellant Lalaram and co-accused Suresh. 27. The injured P.W.3-Vinod and P.W.4 were turned hostile. The another injured P.W.5-Sarvesh Kumar had deposed that someone had fired. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.5 that P.W.5 had not supported the case of the prosecution. 28. On considering the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as well as material on record, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015, decided on 30.06.2016 found that from the evidence, it has been established that some rituals were going on the account of marriage of son of informant P.W.2-Udan and several persons including the appellant Lalaram and co-accused Suresh were firing in air to express happiness in marriage, but suddenly information spread about the falling of a person from roof. On this information people started rushing towards the spot of that accident. Therefore, their shots had strayed towards the crowd that included deceased Sunil Kumar and other injured persons including PW-3 Vinod Kumar and PW4 Mahadeo and PW-5 Sarvesh Kumar. Convict/appellant had no enmity or any motive against any of the injured or the deceased. Before receiving the information of falling of a person from roof, there was no accident or injury to any person, but immediately after spreading of this news accidental fires had caused injuries to these persons. These facts were proved from oral evidences of injured and other witnesses. It was also admitted that those injuries were caused by firing during celebratory Firing. Thus, it is proved that at the time of incident there was no motive to cause injury. It is a case of serious negligence on part of appellant. 29. These facts were proved from oral evidences of injured and other witnesses. It was also admitted that those injuries were caused by firing during celebratory Firing. Thus, it is proved that at the time of incident there was no motive to cause injury. It is a case of serious negligence on part of appellant. 29. After recording the aforesaid findings, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015 (supra) came to the conclusion that the appellant Suresh is found guilty for the act of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. and accordingly, vide order dated 30.06.2016, partly allowed the appeal. The operative part of the order dated 30.06.2016 reads as under :- “In view of the facts and discussion, the order of conviction for offence u/s 3 (2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act is set-aside. The conviction u/s 302 I.P.C. imposed on the appellant is hereby modified u/s 304 I.P.C., and the sentence of imprisonment for life is modified to period of imprisonment for 14 years. The conviction u/s 307 IPC imposed on the appellant is hereby confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment for life is modified to 7 years. The conviction and sentence u/s 3/25 Arms Act imposed on the appellant is confirmed. With the modification of conviction, punishment and sentence, the appeal is partially allowed. Sentences shall run concurrently.” 30. During course of arguments, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has not disputed the facts that the role of the appellant Lalaram is identical to that of co-accused Suresh, whose conviction and sentences vide judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 (supra) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been modified. 31. Par contra, learned Counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the facts that on the date of the incident, appellant Lalaram had fired shot on the body of the deceased and also on the body of several persons, rather he admitted the fact that those injuries were caused by firing during celebratory firing. It is established that at the time of the incident, there was no motive to cause injury, hence it appears to be a case of a serious negligence on the part of the appellant Lalaram. 32. It is established that at the time of the incident, there was no motive to cause injury, hence it appears to be a case of a serious negligence on the part of the appellant Lalaram. 32. At this juncture, it would apt to mention that a culpable homicide is a murder if the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with intention of causing a bodily injury and such injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. All murder is culpable homicide but not vice versa. This is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. 33. In Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana : (2008) 15 SCC 753 " Hon'ble Apex had held : "To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300 "Thirdly": First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; these are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, indisputably, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under Section 300 "Thirdly". It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury is actually found to be proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional." 34. In the instant case, it is proved from the evidence that the charged act was committed by the appellant without intention of murder. From the evidences, it appears probable that the appellant had negligently caused injuries to every person who was found near range of fire without properly knowing as to whether it may cause death or serious injury. This matter comes within Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC. Therefore, the appellant is found guilty of act of culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is punishable under section 304 IPC. 35. Now, only one question remains and that is the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellant-Lalaram for the offence under Section 304 I.P.C. 36. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar : (2013) 9 SCC 516 , the Apex Court held that : "it is clear that the maximum punishment provided therein is imprisonment for life or a term which may extend to 10 years. Although Section 307 does not expressly state the minimum sentence to be imposed, it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict." "17. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict." "17. We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment." 37. It is pertinent to mention that only because Section 304 IPC provides the life imprisonment as the maximum sentence, does not mean that Court should mechanically proceed to impose the maximum sentences, more particularly when the incident had occurred suddenly, and accidently due to negligence. 38. In Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra : (2015) 6 SCC 1 , the Apex Court had held : "While we see no reason to differ with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court, we do see some substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellants that keeping in view the prosecution evidence, the attendant circumstances, the age of the accused and the fact that they have already been in jail for a considerable period, the Court may take lenient view as far as the quantum of sentence is concerned. The offences having been proved against the accused and keeping in view the attendant circumstances, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if the punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced." 39. In Ramashraya Chakravarti v. State of M.P. : (1976) 1 SCC 281 , the Apex Court had observed : "To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of a particular offence is not always an easy task. Sentencing involves an element of guessing but often settles down to practice obtaining in a particular court with inevitable differences arising in the context of the times and events in the light of social imperatives. It is always a matter of judicial discretion subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed by law." "In judging the adequacy of a sentence the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, the age and character of the offender, injury to individuals or to society, effect of the punishment on the offender, eye to correction and reformation of the offender, are some amongst many other factors which would be ordinarily taken into consideration by courts trial courts in this country already overburdened with work have hardly any time to set apart for sentencing reflection. This aspect is missed or deliberately ignored by the accused lest a possible plea for reduction of sentence may be considered as weakening his defence. In a good system of administration of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociological value." 40. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of an appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is done. For sentencing an accused on proof of crime the courts have evolved certain principles; the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. It lies within the discretion of the court to choose a particular sentence within the available range from minimum to maximum. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. 41. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. 41. In considering the adequacy of the sentence which neither be too severe nor too lenient the court has, therefore, to keep in mind the motive and magnitude of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed and the age and character (including his antecedents) and situation in life of the offender. 42. In Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 15 SCC 635 , the Apex Court had discussed points to be taken into account before passing appropriate sentence as under : "23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under: (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations; (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused." 43. Now matter is limited to sentence for offence under Section 304 IPC, and we have to consider about the appropriate deserts for the appellant in this case. For it aggravating circumstances relating to the crime while mitigating circumstances relating to the criminal has to be considered. At the time of commission of charged incident age of appellant was about 35 years. He had knowledge of the fact that he had no licence to use the fire arm actually used by him. It is a thing of common knowledge that celebratory firing is not proper, especially in a crowded area. From facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the appellant initially had no intention for murder/ homicide or causing any injury. Appellant has no criminal history and is in incarceration for about 14 years. Apart from these mitigating circumstances, it is noteworthy that charged incident was due to negligence. Appellant had committed the charged act deliberately. 44. Sri Manish Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was tried alongwith co-accused, Suresh, who has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015 before this court. The appellant and co-accused, Suresh were convicted under section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and for other offences etc. and the Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015 preferred by co-accused, Suresh has been partially allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide judgment and order dated 30-06-2016 and the conviction awarded under section 302 I.P.C. was modified to section 304 I.P.C. and sentence for life imprisonment was also modified to the period of 14 years in the case of co-accused Suresh. 45. 45. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the present appellant-Lalaram has already undergone imprisonment as under trial and after conviction for about 15 years in jail, therefore, the present appeal may also be allowed partly in view of the judgment and order dated 30-06-2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015 preferred by Co-accused-Suresh. 46. In present case after considering the circumstances presented before the trial Court and before this Court during hearing of appeal, it appears appropriate that the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence for it should be converted in conviction under Section 304 IPC only and its sentence should not exceed more than 15 years' imprisonment. 47. Likewise this Court found it appropriate that conviction for charge under Section 307 IPC should be mitigated in present set of circumstances to 7 years' imprisonment which would serve the ends of justice. 48. In view of above facts and discussion, the conviction under Section 302 IPC imposed on the appellant-Lalaram is hereby modified under Section 304 IPC, and the sentence of imprisonment for life is modified to period of imprisonment for 15 years. The conviction and sentence under Section 3/25 Arms Act imposed on the appellant is confirmed. 49. With the aforesaid modification of conviction, punishment and sentence, the appeal is partly allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 30-06-2016 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015. Sentences will run concurrently. 50. Let the copy of this judgment as well as lower Court record be sent to the trial Court for necessary information and ensuring compliance.