JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by Surjeet Singh against his conviction and sentence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. Surjeet Singh was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar, on a charge of voluntarily causing hurt by means of an instrument for shooting and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months on 23rd March, 1968. 2. The prosecution case against him was that one Kemp Lal was an employee of the appellant about one year prior to the occurrence. The appellant turned him out of his employment on account of his having developed an illegal intimacy with the wife of the former. After his services were terminated, Kemp Lal was employed by the firm named as 'Bharat Tyres Resoling Works', the proprietor of which was Ram Chand Kumhar of Shri Ganganagar. On 23rd October, 1966 at about 3.15 p.m. Kemp Lal accompanied by his employer's brother Bhadar Ram, went to Ganesh Talkies for seeing a picture. He and his companion, however, could not get cinema tickets. So he returned to Krishana Talkies, but there also the tickets were not available. Kemp Lal and his associates then went to the shop of their friend Pritam Singh, which was situated near Rita Bhawan a Shri Ganganagar. The shop was found closed. So both of them sat on a cot, which was lying in front of the shop. After a short while Kemp Lal lay prostrate on the cot, whereas Bhadar Ram kept himself sitting on it near his feet. Meanwhile they saw Surjeet Singh appellant along with one Sardar, who had a gun in his hand standing beneath a 'Neem' tree at some distance from the cot. The appellant took the gun from the hand of the Sardar and fired a shot at Kemp Lal and Bhadar Ram, who sustained injuries on their persons as a result thereof. After firing gunshot the appellant and his companion ran away from there. Bhadar Ram and Kemp Lal were removed by there relatives to a private dispensary of Dr. Arjun Singh, who gave them first aid and advised them to go to Government Hospital for treatment of their injuries. After firing gunshot the appellant and his companion ran away from there. Bhadar Ram and Kemp Lal were removed by there relatives to a private dispensary of Dr. Arjun Singh, who gave them first aid and advised them to go to Government Hospital for treatment of their injuries. After some time Ram Chand and his father returned from their permanent residence at Chak No. 4 M.L. and took this occurrence was lodged by Ram Chand at city police station, Shri Ganga Nagar, at about 7.45 p.m. The police registered a case under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant and his companion Magar Singh on the basis of the report and started investigation. After making usual investigation into the case, the police put up a charge sheet against both the accused persons in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Shri Ganganagar, who held an inquiry, preparatory to commitment, and upon finding a prime facie case committed Surjeet Singh appellant to the court of Sessions Shri Ganganagar, from where the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial. Magar Singh co-accused was discharged by the Committing Court. The trial court tried the appellant and found him not guilty of an offence of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The appellant was, however, found guilty under Section 324, Indian Penal Code only, for which he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. I have gone through the record and heard the arguments. The sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended by order of this court dated 22nd May,1968. He was released on bail in pursuance of this order, but he did not put in his appearance on subsequent dates of hearing. Hence his bail bonds were forfeited and bailable warrant was issued against him for procuring his attendance. The warrant could not be executed despite efforts on the part of the serving officer of the police. As Shri R.S. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant, regularly appeared in the court for the appellant his arguments as well as that of the Deputy Govt. Advocate were heard. 4. The first contention put forward on behalf of the appellant is that the first information report in this case was lodged with the police by Ram Chand after considerable delay, which causes a reasonable doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Advocate were heard. 4. The first contention put forward on behalf of the appellant is that the first information report in this case was lodged with the police by Ram Chand after considerable delay, which causes a reasonable doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. The above contention has no substance. The occurrence took place on 23rd October, 1966, at 3.15 p.m. and the first information report was lodged the very day at 7.45 p.m. The delay, if any, occurred because some time was taken to remove the injured from the place of the occurrence first to the dispensary of Arjun Singh and then to the hospital. Consequently, there is no merit in the contention that the first information report was an outcome of deliberation and consultation. 5. The next ground on which the conviction of the appellant has been challenged before me is that no independent eye witness has been produced from the side of the prosecution to corroborated the testimony of Kemp Lal and Bhadar Ram injured and in the absence of any independent Corroborative evidence, the trial court committed a serious error in acting upon the interested evidence of the injured persons. The above contention also has no force, because upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of Kemp Lal and Bhadar Ram, it was held by the trial court that their evidence was reliable and free from infirmities. I have been taken through the evidence of these two witnesses given in the course of the trial. Nothing material has been elicited from their cross examination which may tend to destroy the value of their evidence or to impeach, their credibility. Both Kemp Lal and Bhadar Ram definitely stated in their depositions that the appellant after taking gun from the hand of his companion fired a shot from it at them, the pellets of which hit their bodies. The incident took place in broad day light. The appellant was previously known to the injured. The shot was fired by the appellant from a distance of about 60 ft. from the place where one of the injured was lying and the other sitting on a cot in front of shop of their friend Pritam Singh. Both Kemp Lal and Bhadar Ram could see the appellant firing a shot from the gun. The shot was fired by the appellant from a distance of about 60 ft. from the place where one of the injured was lying and the other sitting on a cot in front of shop of their friend Pritam Singh. Both Kemp Lal and Bhadar Ram could see the appellant firing a shot from the gun. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out some discrepancies appearing between the statements of Kemp Lal, which he gave before the police and before the trial court and contended on their strength that the evidence of Kemp Lal is worthless and highly incredible. The first contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in his statement Ex. D.2 Kemp Lal admitted that the appellant and his companion had taken him and Bhadar Ram to a dispensary in a rickshaw. In this subsequent statement before the trial court, Kemp Lal gave a different version by stating that some relative of Surjeet Singh had taken him and Bhadar Ram to private dispensary of Arjun Singh in a rickshaw. The above discrepancy is there but it is of no significance. It is possible that on account of laps of time Kemp Lal might not have remembered as who had taken him and his companion to the dispensary. There is another discrepancy between his statement Ex. D.5 and his statement before the trial Court. The discrepancy relates to the arrival of Ram Chand and his father. In his statement Ex. D.5 Kemp Lal stated that he was lying in his shop when Ram Chand and his father had come there. In his subsequent statement before the trial court, he changed his version by stating that Ram Chand met him in the way when he was returning from his shop, which was closed. As stated earlier, these discrepancies are bound to occur in the evidence of a truthful witness. After careful review of his evidence. I find it entirely trust worthy. Similar is the evidence of Bhadar Ram P.W.3. He also does not stand discredited on a crucial or a material point. In my opinion, the trial court committed no error in placing reliance upon their evidence, especially when it has no been shaken in cross examination. The evidence of the two injured persons as to the presence of injuries on their bodies is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. In my opinion, the trial court committed no error in placing reliance upon their evidence, especially when it has no been shaken in cross examination. The evidence of the two injured persons as to the presence of injuries on their bodies is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Lajpat Rai, who medically examined Bhadar Ram found as man has sixteen injuries on his body. According to his opinion, two pellets were extracted from the body of Bhadar Ram, one from the left knee and the other from the left of his chest. All the injuries of Bhadar Ram were found simple in nature and caused by a gun shot. He examined Kemp Lal also. He had two black marks, each 1/10" x 1/10" on the dorsum of left foot, one on the middle of the arch foot and other 1" below and 1/2" inner to it. This injury also was caused by a gun shot. The Doctor further opined that the fire arm, with which these injuries were caused, was discharged from a distance of 30ft. and no charting and tatooing marks were found on the bodies of both the injured. The duration of the injuries was within 24 hours at the time of medical examination. From the evidence of Dr. Lajpat Rai, PW 5, it is established beyond doubt that all the simple injuries were caused on the bodies of the two injured with an instrument for shooting. 6. Lastly, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the incident did not occur at the place alleged by the prosecution. According to him, if the shot was fired at the injured while they were reclining on a cot at the shop of Pritam Singh, some blood ought to have been found lying on the ground or on the cot & as no blood or pellets were found there, it may safely be concluded that the injured were not there. The above contention is devoid of force because the injured were not sitting on a cot lying in the Verandah of shop. Their evidence is that the cot was lying on the ground in front of the shop of Pritam Singh as is evident from the site plan Ex. P.2. Hence no possibility of blood stains appearing on the wall and doors of the shop could arise. Their evidence is that the cot was lying on the ground in front of the shop of Pritam Singh as is evident from the site plan Ex. P.2. Hence no possibility of blood stains appearing on the wall and doors of the shop could arise. It appears from the injuries sustained by Bhadar Ram that a good number of pellets had hit different parts of his body. It is possible that all the pellets emanating from the gun shot had hit different parts of his body. Hence no possibility of any marks of pellets on the wall or the door could arise. Not a single question was put to Kemp Lal and Bhadar Ram whether blood had come out of the wounds and had fallen on the cot or the ground. The injured were immediately removed to a private dispensary in a rickshaw. In these circumstances, blood might not have fallen on the cot and on the ground. 7. The prosecution has brought guilt home to the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. There is no justification for disturbing the finding of the lower court as to his guilt. As regards sentence, it may be observed that it is not severe in the circumstances. 8. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds. The District Magistrate Shri Ganganagar, is directed to get him arrested and to send him to jail for serving out the sentence awarded to him by the trial court and confirmed by this Court. *******