JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that hits appeal of appellants may kindly be accepted and allowed and the appellants ma very kindly be ordered to acquitted or in the alternative may be given benefit u/s. 360 Cr.P.C. or probation.” 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1987 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 1989. 3. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 63/87 State Vs. Pratap & Ors. whereby the appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2 were convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and each of them were sentenced to 10 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default of payment of which they were to further undergo 1 month R.I. and 1 year R.I., respectively, whereas appellant no. 3 was convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. for 1 year R.I. 4. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor submits that appellants no. 2 and 3, have died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal, with respect to appellants no. 2 and 3 therefore, stands abated, whereas the appeal, with respect to appellant no. 1 survives. 5. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the appellant are that on 18.06.1987 at about 09:00 a.m. P.W. 10 Kashiram, S.H.O. Police Station Bhadra registered a report in his roznamcha wherein he recorded the statement of P.W. 3 Chhoturam, at Ex. P/1, and in that statement P.W. 3 stated that construction work was being undertaken to construct his house in his village, for which his brothers, Ratanlal and Veersingh, were supplying bricks. And that, Pratap, Sampat, Sheoram, Hari Ram and another unidentified person came to his field, contesting his right to the land upon which he had begun the construction. And that, Hari Singh was armed with a pistol, Pratap and Sampat were armed with guns, and the remaining persons were carrying Barchi. And that, Hari Singh fired upon the complainant, whose thigh was injured and fell to the ground. And that, additional firing was made by the accused, which hit the complainant’s parents, and resulted into the death of his father. And that, Hari Singh fired upon the complainant, whose thigh was injured and fell to the ground. And that, additional firing was made by the accused, which hit the complainant’s parents, and resulted into the death of his father. The accused persons then fled the scene, and this entire incident was seen by Veer Singh, Ratanlal, Man Singh and Sheo Karan. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that a criminal case, bearing No. 83/87 was lodged wherein the appellant herein were charged for the offences under the Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act. And that, the investigating officer, P.W. 10 Kashiram commenced investigation and prepared the fard baramadgi, the site plan, and received the post mortem of the deceased victim Ranjit and the injury report of Chotu Ram and Rampyari. After which, the same was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Nohar and the accused persons were arrested and the recovery of weapons from them was made. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the accused were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 147.148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act. And that, upon trial the learned Court below acquitted Pratap and Mangiram for all the charges against them while convicting the appellants no. 1 and 2 Sampat and Hari Singh for the offences under Sections 307 I.P.C. and Sections 27 Arms Act and convicted appellant no. 3 Sheo Ram for Section 323 I.P.C. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the injuries caused to Ram Pyari and Choturam were not caused to the vital parts of either of their bodies, and the injuries were simple in nature. And that, therefore, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out against the appellant no. 1, Sampat. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the pellets so recovered from the incident in question, were not sent for ballistic testing, and no such report either was generated by the concerned police authorities. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 15.01.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 457/1989. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 15.01.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 457/1989. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant has undergone about 2 months in custody out of the total sentence so awarded to him by the learned Courts below. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the learned Court below has rightly proceeded in convicting the appellant, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences placed on record before it. 14. This Court observes that the root of the dispute between the parties herein, was owing to partition of a parcel of land between them. And that, appellant no. 1 was convicted under Sections 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, intention as under Section 307 I.P.C. cannot merely be inferred from the nature of the injuries so inflicted upon the victims, but from the acts of the accused persons. 15. This Court however observes that the learned Court below has not taken into due consideration the fact that no blood was found on the spot where the incident in question occurred. 16. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. 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.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 17. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail, in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on vide order dated 15.01.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 457/1989, whereby the sentenced awarded to him was suspended. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 18. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.