JUDGMENT : SANJAY PARIHAR, J. 01. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.10.2011 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Samba “the trial court” whereby the appellant was convicted for the commission of offence under Section 307 RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 02. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.01.1999 at about 6:00–6:30 p.m., the injured PW’s Balwant Singh, Darshana Devi and Naseeb Singh lodged an oral report at Police Post Vijaypur alleging that while they were standing near the gate of their house, the appellant Manjeet Singh along with co-accused Manveer Singh, owing to previous enmity, started hurling abuses at them. It was alleged that when Naseeb Singh attempted to intervene, the appellant went back to his house, brought a 12-bore single-barrel gun, climbed onto the rooftop and fired in their direction with an intention to commit murder, as a result of which pellet injuries were sustained by all three injured persons. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 20/1999 under Sections 307/34 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act came to be registered. After completion of investigation and recording of medical evidence, the appellant was put to trial, whereas the co-accused was declared a juvenile. The trial court, relying upon the testimony of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence, returned a finding of guilt against the appellant under Section 307 RPC. 03. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the FIR included offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act, no charge under the said provision was framed and the alleged weapon was neither properly recovered nor conclusively connected with the offence. It was further argued that the injured had reached the hospital on their own and were not produced by the police, thereby creating doubt about the prosecution version. It was submitted that all injuries sustained were simple in nature and caused by pellets, and there was no cogent evidence to establish that the appellant had directly aimed and fired at the injured with intention to cause death. The possibility of accidental firing or pellets ricocheting after striking a hard surface was also projected, particularly in view of admitted prior enmity between the parties. 04. The possibility of accidental firing or pellets ricocheting after striking a hard surface was also projected, particularly in view of admitted prior enmity between the parties. 04. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the trial court, submitting that the testimony of the injured witnesses remained consistent and unshaken in cross- examination and was duly corroborated by medical evidence, thereby fully establishing the prosecution case. 05. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon reappraisal of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the injured witnesses sustained pellet injuries on the date of occurrence. However, the medical evidence clearly establishes that all injuries were simple in nature. Although the prosecution alleged use of a 12-bore gun, the recovery and proof of the weapon in connection with the occurrence remains doubtful, particularly in view of the fact that no effective finding under Section 3/25 Arms Act was returned. The prosecution has also failed to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death, which is the essential ingredient of an offence under Section 307 RPC. The evidence on record does not conclusively establish that the fire was directly aimed at the injured; nor does it exclude the possibility that the pellets might have scattered after striking a hard object. In the absence of clear proof of intention to commit murder, the conviction under Section 307 RPC cannot be sustained. 06. Nonetheless, the evidence unmistakably proves that the injured persons sustained simple hurt by use of a dangerous weapon. The act attributed to the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of Section 324 RPC, which makes punishable the voluntary causing of hurt by dangerous weapon or means. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Mishra and Others v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 1764 , altered conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC where the injuries were found to be simple in nature. Applying the same principle, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant deserves to be altered from Section 307 RPC to Section 324 RPC. 07. It is also brought to notice that during the pendency of the appeal, two of the injured persons entered into a compromise with the appellant, while the third injured expired. Applying the same principle, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant deserves to be altered from Section 307 RPC to Section 324 RPC. 07. It is also brought to notice that during the pendency of the appeal, two of the injured persons entered into a compromise with the appellant, while the third injured expired. Though Section 324 RPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court, considering the peculiar facts of the case and the long lapse of time since the occurrence of 24.01.1999, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the sentence rather than formally permit compounding. The appellant has already undergone custody for four days and has faced the ordeal of trial and appeal for more than twenty years. 08. In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 RPC is set aside and is altered to one under Section 324 RPC. The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, to be deposited before the trial Court in accordance with law, in default thereof shall suffer imprisonment of one month. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Record be sent back to the trial Court for compliance.