JUDGMENT G.S.N. Tripathi 1. Accused Lala @ Ashvasthama has been convicted on a charge under Section 307, I.P.C. Accused Sukhbir and Sheetal have been convicted on a charge under Section 307/34, I.P.C. The accused had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years on respective charges. 2. The prosecution case started on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by Dhoom Singh, P.W. 4 at the police station on 12.7.77 at 10 p.m. after covering a distance of 4 miles. The incident is said to have taken place in the same evening at about 8.30 p.m. It has been alleged by the complainant in the F.I.R. that his brother Sahdev and mother Smt. Atlau, P.W. 5 were returning after giving food to his brother Sahdev and father Dalel Singh at their tube-well. The accused Lala @ Ashvasthama, Sheetal and Sukhbir met them on the way in the grove. Sukhbir ordered his mother Smt. Atlau to stop. Thereupon Sheetal said that it was a very good opportunity and the complainant, brother and mother should be done to death. The complainant Prakash, Kalu and others, who were talking at the tube- well nearly heard the alarm. Hearing it, they rushed towards the place of occurrence. Accused Lala fired at Sahdev and Smt. Atlau and after causing injuries to these persons, they escaped. It was about 8.30 p.m. in the night. The complainant had gone with the injured persons to the police station along with the F.I.R 3. The case was registered in the police station and the injured persons were forwarded to Burhana P.H.C. for medical examination. Dr. Ajit Singh, C.W. 1 attended them in the same night at 10.35 p.m. Both the injured persons were bleeding. Therefore, he did not examine them and after applying first-aid, he referred them to the District Hospital for better treatment and examination. 4. The injured were thus taken to the District Hospital. P.W. 2 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Jain examined Sahdev at 1.30 p.m. in the same night on 13.5.77 and found as many as 5 firearm injuries, which were quite fresh. These injuries were dressed and some medicine had been applied. 5. He examined Smt.Atlau at 2.30 a.m. in the same night and found as many as four firearm injuries. The injuries were kept under observation. Dr. Manjula Gupta, Radiologist took the X-ray of these injured persons. Only radio opaque metallic substances were found inside the wound. These injuries were dressed and some medicine had been applied. 5. He examined Smt.Atlau at 2.30 a.m. in the same night and found as many as four firearm injuries. The injuries were kept under observation. Dr. Manjula Gupta, Radiologist took the X-ray of these injured persons. Only radio opaque metallic substances were found inside the wound. No fracture was observed. 6. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the accused. The injuries of the injured persons have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the body of his judgment. Hence they are not being repeated here. The prosecution has examined P.W. 5 Smt. Atlau, the injured person. She has narrated the entire prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R further she stated that after giving food to her husband and son, she was returning from the tube-well along with Sahdev, her son. In the grove of Shetal, she saw the three accused Lala, Shetal and Sukhbir standing. They said that these two persons (namely Smt. Atlau and Sahdev) had constructed a wall. They also used to pluck mango fruits and thus they had caused a lot of botheration to them. They asked Smt. Atlau to halt and further said that she could call anybody she liked in defiant manner. She raised alarm. Thereupon. Shetal asked Lala to fire at them, Lala accordingly fired at Sahdev. After receiving the shot, Sahdev fell down. Prakash, Hukum and Dhoom Singh and others came nearby. Then these culprits fired at her also. Thereupon, they tried to escape. The witnesses chased them but they ran away. Dhoom Singh, her son applied cloth bandage upon the injuries of these persons and took them to his tube-well and from there, they were brought to the hospital, police station etc. 7. P.W. 4 Dhoom Singh, the complainant, was at his tube-well. He has also deposed that after providing food at the tube-well, Smt. Atlau and his brother Sahdev were returning. There was enmity between the accused and the complainant side from before. At about 8.30 p.m. shortly after Smt. Atlau and Sahdev left the tube-well and had covered about 50 paces, he heard the alarm and rushed towards the place of occurrence armed with torches along with Hukum Singh. He saw the accused and identified them in the torch light. His mother and brother after having received fire arm injuries were lying in the Nali. He saw the accused and identified them in the torch light. His mother and brother after having received fire arm injuries were lying in the Nali. The accused were chased for some distance. But they escaped after threatening to fire at them as well. He gathered information from his mother Smt. Atlau and thereupon tried to scribe the F.I.R. himself but his hands started trembling. Hence he dictated the F.I.R. to Gajandra D.W. 1 and after getting it scribed by him, he signed it and took the same along with the injured persons to the Burhana police station and lodged the report there. The injured persons were taken to the hospital by him first to Burhana P.H.C. and then to Muzaffarnagar District Hospital. Apart from these two persons P.W. 6, Hukum Singh and P.W. 7 Prakash are also eye-witnesses of the fact. They too were near the tube-well and after hearing the alarm, they had proceeded to the spot and saw the accused committing the crime and running away. 8. Other evidence is formal in nature. P.W. 1 Dr. R. K. Verma, Lecturer Radiologist in the Medical College, Meerut, has come to prove the X-ray report prepared by Dr. (Smt.) Manjula Rani, who was dead. P.W. 2 Rakesh Kumar Jain has proved the injury reports of the injured persons. P.W. 3 Ganga Saran Sharma, Head Constable has proved the chik report. P.W. 8 S.I. Bhanwar Singh has proved the investigation process from the beginning till end P.W. 9 Dr. Bali Ram Pandey is also Radiologist. 9. The accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. have denied the allegations against them and have alleged that on account of enmity, they have been falsely implicated. They have further said that the F.I.R. is false and ante-timed. 10. The accused have examined D.W. 1, Gajendra Singh the scribe of the F.I.R. He has deposed that he scribed the F.I.R. on the following day at the police station. He did not go to the tube-well or place of occurrence in the night. D.W. 2 Vikram Singh is the person on whose tractor the injured persons were taken to the police station and the hospital in the night of occurrence. He has come to depose that at the tube-well, the injured persons did not name anyone of the assailants. He did not go to the tube-well or place of occurrence in the night. D.W. 2 Vikram Singh is the person on whose tractor the injured persons were taken to the police station and the hospital in the night of occurrence. He has come to depose that at the tube-well, the injured persons did not name anyone of the assailants. He had taken the injured persons in his tractor to the police station and the hospital. In the night of occurrence, Hukum Singh and Dhoom Singh had no torches with them. He had reached the spot from his village and thus has tried to say that the assailants were named after cool calculation and planning. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence and circumstances on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was worthy of credence and he accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced them, as noted above. 12. Feeling aggrieved, all the three accused, namely Lala, Sukhbir and Shetal have filed this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, accused Shetal has died. Therefore, case against him abates. Only accused Lala and Sukhbir are left I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Dudh Nath Yadav, the learned A.G.A. at stretch and gone through the record. I find that there is no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. 13. From the evidence of C.W. 1 Dr. Ajit Singh, it is clear that Smt. Atlau and Sahdev, injured persons had been taken to his hospital on 12.5.77 at about 10.35 p.m. He applied first-aid and referred the injured persons to the District Hospital for prompt and better medical aid. He had mentioned this fact in his O.P.D. register. In the cross-examination, he has said that constable had brought the injured persons alongwith the letter for medical examination (Chitthi Majrubi Ex. Ka 2 and Ka 3) addressed to him. But without making any endorsement thereon and after noting the fact in the O.P.D. register, he referred the injured to the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. The injured persons were bleeding profusely at that time when they were examined by him. It has not been suggested to him that the injured persons were not taken to him in that night at 10.30 p.m. and there was no bleeding. The injured persons were bleeding profusely at that time when they were examined by him. It has not been suggested to him that the injured persons were not taken to him in that night at 10.30 p.m. and there was no bleeding. So, it is established that the two injured persons were taken to the P.H.C., Burhana in the same night at 10.30 p.m. before Dr. Ajit Singh and their injuries were fresh and bleeding. 14. P.W. 2 Dr. R. K. Jain examined the injured persons in the same night at 1.30 a.m. at Muzaffarnagar District Hospital and noted the injuries (Ex. Ka 2 and Ka 3). They were firearm injuries and fresh, and they could have been caused in the same night at about 8.30 p.m. Regarding the factum of these injuries, he was not questioned. It was not suggested to him that in fact, these injuries were not there. From the evidence of Dr. R. K. Verma, P.W. 1 also it is established that there were radio-opaque substances found in the body. So, it is established from this objective evidence that these two injured persons Smt. Atlau and Sahdev had firearm injuries on their persons, which could have been caused in the same night at 8.30 p.m. 15. P.W. 3 Sri Ganga Saran Sharma. Head Constable had deposed that he had received the written F.I.R. in the police station in the same night at 10.30 a.m. He registered the case and prepared the document. The only suggestion made to him was that the chik report was ante-timed by him. He has denied it. Mere suggestion is no substitute for evidence. Hence I reject this suggestion made to this witness. 16. P.W. 8 Sri Bhanwar Singh I.O. has also deposed that the report in this case was lodged in the night of the occurrence. But he did not take any action thereupon in the night. Even the D.Ws. examined by the accused have supported the version of the prosecution that an incident took place in that night at 8.30 p.m. D.W. 2 Vikram Singh has deposed that after the injuries had been received by Sahdev and Smt. Atlau, he went at their grove. There were 60-70 persons already assembled. Even the D.Ws. examined by the accused have supported the version of the prosecution that an incident took place in that night at 8.30 p.m. D.W. 2 Vikram Singh has deposed that after the injuries had been received by Sahdev and Smt. Atlau, he went at their grove. There were 60-70 persons already assembled. On his tractor, he brought the injured persons to the police station Burhana and P.H.C. Hence the factum of injuries received at about 8.30 p.m. and further the factum of the injured persons being taken to the police station in the same night is established from the statement of Vikram Singh, D.W. 2 also. D.W. 1 Gajendra Singh, a dismissed S.I. of the police department and the scribe of the F.I.R. has deposed in paragraph 1 of the cross-examination that the incident took place at about 8.30 or 9 p.m. also received information and reached there. Vikram Singh D.W. 2 had already arrived there. At the tube-well, no mention of reporting the matter at the police station was heard by him. Any way, it is established that the incident took place at about 8.30 p.m. in that night. 17. Apart from this, we have the statement of P.W. 5 Smt. Atlau, the injured person. She has given date, time and place of occurrence. In the cross- examination regarding the date, time and place of occurrence, no question was put. She has said at page 3 of her statement that she reached P.H.C. Burhana in the same night at about 10 p.m. She had also gone to the police station. But she was not interrogated. A suggestion was put to her that she was injured by some other persons in darkness and she could not identify the culprits. So from this suggestion also, it is clear that the accused have admitted this fact that in that night of occurrence, she had received injuries. 18. Similar statement has been made by other witness of fact on the date, time and place of occurrence. So, this fact is established from the discussion above. The place of occurrence is also fixed from the statement of P.W. 8 Bhanwar Singh, I.O. who reached the spot on the following day and collected blood stained and ordinary earth from the spot and prepared memos for them. On the point of place of occurrence, the witness has not been cross-examined. The place of occurrence is also fixed from the statement of P.W. 8 Bhanwar Singh, I.O. who reached the spot on the following day and collected blood stained and ordinary earth from the spot and prepared memos for them. On the point of place of occurrence, the witness has not been cross-examined. So this way also, the place of occurrence is fully established. 19. Now the only question remains as to whether these accused were responsible for committing the crime. The factum of motive is not disputed in this case. The accused persons were known from before. They belonged to the same village. Kather, same family. Therefore, they could be identified even in star-lit night. Not only this, there was a mild conversation between Smt. Atlau on the one hand and the accused on the other. She has said that when she came near the Sahtut tree, she saw all the three accused standing there. Shetal asked her to stop and also narrated her alleged misdeeds. She refused to stop. Thereupon the accused challenged her to call anybody she chose to defend her. This way, this was an additional factor which helped this lady to identify the culprits. She has frankly admitted that there was no electric light available. But the grove was not dense. Only 7-8 trees were there. It was wrong to say that it was very dark at that time and it was difficult to identify the culprits. Further, she says that torch lights were also available when the accused were retreating. The accused had not gone very far. Two shots were fired. In the cross-examination, some omission under Section 161, Cr. P.C. were put to her. She has said that she did make the statement. But if the I.O. failed to jot down, she has no explanation. After all neither the F.I.R. nor the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. can be said to be encyclopaedia. The I.O. is not a law knowing person. He does not put all questions which a lawyer puts in the cross-examination. His mental horizon is not so wide as that of an intelligent and learned lawyer. Apart from these things, he puts only questions which he deems proper. But he does not necessarily record the statements verbatim. Hence such omissions are bound to take place. He does not put all questions which a lawyer puts in the cross-examination. His mental horizon is not so wide as that of an intelligent and learned lawyer. Apart from these things, he puts only questions which he deems proper. But he does not necessarily record the statements verbatim. Hence such omissions are bound to take place. But the substance of the statement of Smt. Atlau is to the effect that the accused persons came in a very close contact with her and it cannot be disputed. On this point, she has remained uncateched. She has clearly stated that after receipt of injuries, Sahdev became unconscious for a while. But she did not become unconscious. She remained lying for about 20 minutes. Thereupon, she was lifted and she was bleeding. This is the core of the prosecution evidence. On this point, her statement has not been shaken in any manner whatsoever. Minor and irrelevant details are missing there no doubt. But shorn of these minor defects in substance her statement, inspires confidence and the learned lower court has properly appraised the evidence of these injured witnesses and has drawn a right conclusion. 20. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence is about 4 miles. She was taken in a tractor. After the receipt of the injuries, a lot of time was wasted but in a natural manner, while discussing the matter, scribing the F.I.R. arranging for tractor and so on. The tractor would have taken about two hours. Hence at about 8 p.m., the party would have started from the place of occurrence. The incident took place on 12.5.77. The sun set at that day at about 7 p.m. Even after sun set for nearly an hour, there was slight visibility available and in that light and in star-lit light, there was no difficulty for this lady in identifying her culprits. Her statement that she reached Burhana at about 1 p.m., is not disputed. Hence in between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m., the occurrence took place. The witnesses including Smt. Atlau are either illiterate or semi-literate. They did not carry watches with them. So a rough estimate regarding the time of occurrence can be easily made. The result is that the difficulty in identifying all the culprits is totally removed so far as this injured witness Smt. Atlau is concerned. The witnesses including Smt. Atlau are either illiterate or semi-literate. They did not carry watches with them. So a rough estimate regarding the time of occurrence can be easily made. The result is that the difficulty in identifying all the culprits is totally removed so far as this injured witness Smt. Atlau is concerned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made a local inspection of the spot on 16.8.79. A copy of his inspection note is on the record. He has noted that the site-plan Ex. Ka 9 prepared by the I.P. is correct according to the spot position. The grove of the accused shown by point 8 is about 7 biswas. The small number of trees shown by the I.O. is correct. Only 7 trees have been shown in this plot. So the presence of these trees cannot constitute a very dark night specially in the summer around 8 p.m., making it difficult to identify the real culprits. 21. The distance from the tube-well of the complainant (c) to the place of occurrence is about 24 steps. So one can easily hear the alarm raised from point A at the tube-well shown by point C and the witnesses could rush towards the place of occurrence and see the incident. The distance of tube-well of Vikram Singh from the point A in the site-plan is about 20 steps only. So. from this place also one can easily rush and reach after hearing the alarm. So the local inspection note prepared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also helpful to the prosecution and gives it an intrinsic support. He has also noted that the place is visible from the Nali. Further he has found that the tractor could reach the tube-well of the complainant and there was a passage of Nali which could be used by the pedestrians. Hence the possibility of the witness reaching near the spot is totally established from the local inspection note prepared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This note coupled with the statement of Smt. Atlau, if read together, makes the prosecution case totally natural that firstly the accused could be identified by the injured persons and secondly, after hearing the alarm the witnesses could arrive on the spot and they also could see the accused committing crime and running away soon thereafter. This note coupled with the statement of Smt. Atlau, if read together, makes the prosecution case totally natural that firstly the accused could be identified by the injured persons and secondly, after hearing the alarm the witnesses could arrive on the spot and they also could see the accused committing crime and running away soon thereafter. In this background, I find that the statement of Smt. Atlau, the injured witness, is very credible and it is singly sufficient for recording conviction against the accused. 22. I have already rejected the argument of the learned counsel that the F.I.R in this case is ante-timed. So this F.I.R cements the statement of Smt. Atlau. It is very prompt and constrains almost all the facts upon which the prosecution case has been built up. namely the date, time and place of occurrence, the weapons used by the accused, the injuries caused to the injured persons etc. So it cannot be said that the prosecution story has been embellished and improved at a later stage. This is an additional factor which lends credence to the statement of Smt. Atlau. Apart from the statement of Smt. Atlau, we have the statement of P.W. 4 Dhoom Singh, the complainant. He reached the spot soon after hearing the alarm and conversation and saw the incident with his own eyes. He further says that he and Hukum Singh had torches. It is significant to note that the recovery memo of the torches Ex. Ka 7 was prepared by the I.O. on 13.5.77. If he did put questions to these witnesses as to whether they flashed torches or not, it is not the fault of the witnesses, rather, the ignorance of the I.O. But once the existence of torches is proved from the statements of these witnesses, as well as from the recovery memo and the statement of the I.O., it is but natural to infer that the torch-holders flashed their torhces and utilized the opportunity to identify the culprits in that light. Further, he said that apart from ocular testimony, he gathered this information from his mother Atlau also and on that basis he got scribed the F.I.R from Gajendra Singh, D.W. 1 as his hands started trembling and he had to get the services of scribe of the F.I.R His statement in paragraph 4 that there was enmity between the parties on the point of Nali, has not been challenged. Similarly there was dispute between the parties regarding the lane also. As both the parties belong to the same family, there was a dispute regarding property also. Therefore, there was sufficient motive for committing the crime. The learned counsel argued that when there are big families and properties, minor scuffles are bound to be there. But that will not prompt the family members to cause assault with firearms in a way as displayed by the prosecution. This may be a parcel truth but no generalisation can be made on that basis. Parties are the villagers. They are semi-educated people. So their reactions cannot be said to be as sober as those of urbanised and sophisticated persons. Their standard of thinking is quite different. So, I reject this argument of the learned counsel. The witness in paragraph 10 has admitted that there are two electric poles but he does not claim falsely that there was an electric light flowing from the electric poles at that time. So, the witnesses chewed falsehood and sticked to the truth. Further, he says that he brought the injured persons to the police station and hospital. This fact is established from the statement of D.W. 2 Vikram Singh also. Minor omissions under Section 161, Cr. P.C. were put him. He says that he did make a statement. If those statements were not correctly noted by the I.O., he could not be faulted. He has denied the allegation that the F.I.R was scribed on the following days. It is difficult to believe, because the Chitthi Majrubi had already been forwarded to the P.H.C. and the District Hospital. The crime number etc. must have been noted therein. So, it could not be anticipated that the crime of this nature would be committed. Hence this argument has no substance that the F.I.R. was not lodged in time. Moreover, all the details could not be noted in the F.I.R. at that time because the witness was panic stricken and confused. The crime number etc. must have been noted therein. So, it could not be anticipated that the crime of this nature would be committed. Hence this argument has no substance that the F.I.R. was not lodged in time. Moreover, all the details could not be noted in the F.I.R. at that time because the witness was panic stricken and confused. His real brother and mother were victims of assault. So he had very little time to think coolly and plan his strategy to implicate his enemies. Even in his statement, factum of injuries, date, time and place of occurrence, had not been disputed. So the statement of this witness is equally credible. 23. P.W. 6, Hukum Singh is another eye-witness of the occurrence. He has his tube-well and fields nearby. At the time of occurrence, he was smoking Hukka with Dalel Singh (husband of Smt. Atlau). Dhoop Singh, the complainant, Prakash and Jagdish were also present. Enjoying Hukka smoking after days work is not unusual in this part of the state. So no objection can be taken to the statement of P.W. 6 Hukum Singh, when he says that he was smoking Hukka and with that object, he was present at the tube-well of the complainant. When he heard the sudden alarm raised by Smt. Atlau, he rushed to the spot flashing torch along with the complainant and others and saw the incident. He also belongs to the same family and village to which the parties in this case belong. He has clearly admitted this fact in paragraph 2 of the Examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination but for minor details, nothing materials has been obtained. He has clearly stated at page 4 of the cross-examination that it was not very dark at that time. He was carrying his torch with him. He found both the injured persons in the Nali. He has frankly stated that is an ex-military personnel. Therefore, he was not scared of fire shots. Hence he boldly proceeded towards the spot. He gave the correct version to the I.O. regarding the shots fired by the accused. A bald suggestion has been made to him that he did not see the occurrence. But it was not suggested that he was not present on the spot. The possession of torch with him is also not disputed. Hence he boldly proceeded towards the spot. He gave the correct version to the I.O. regarding the shots fired by the accused. A bald suggestion has been made to him that he did not see the occurrence. But it was not suggested that he was not present on the spot. The possession of torch with him is also not disputed. Therefore, he is a reliable witness and his evidence can be used for corroboration purposes. 24. P.W. 7 Prakash was also enjoying Hukka at the tube-well of Dhoop Singh, complainant and from there he heard the alarm and reached the spot. He had a torch which he was flashing. In his presence, the injured persons were shifted for the Hospital at Burhana. He has denied the allegation that he has been tutored to depose falsely. Thus his statement is equally reliable. Taking all these factors into consideration, I find that the prosecution case has been amply proved by the evidence on the record. There is no force in this argument that the accused made no efforts to conceal their identity although they chose night for committing the crime. The accused by their conduct have proved to be dare-devils. They were challenging the P.Ws. to call their protectors. This shows that they were not afraid to being identified. That is why they chose to commit the crime not in the dead of night but almost in the evening where there was very little darkness. Similarly the argument that the motive was very weak, is not of any substance. 25. Few words regarding the defence evidence may also be said just to show how false statements have been procured from these witnesses. D.W. 1 Gajendra Singh is the scribe of the F.I.R. He is Ex-S.I. police. He reached the spot at 8.30 p.m. but nobody told him that as to who caused the injuries. It is difficult to believe that the injured persons did not name the accused at the time. At least they could tell before him that the culprits were not identified. He admits that Vikram, Singh, D.W. 2 had already arrived. He did not enquire as to who had caused the injuries. Nor anybody said to him about it. He did not deem it proper to make such enquiry as there was a hurry to rush the injured persons to the Hospital. He admits that Vikram, Singh, D.W. 2 had already arrived. He did not enquire as to who had caused the injuries. Nor anybody said to him about it. He did not deem it proper to make such enquiry as there was a hurry to rush the injured persons to the Hospital. The person like him having a police background was bound to put these questions. But he did not put that. It is difficult to believe that he would have behaved like that. 26. Further, he says that the hands of the complainant started trembling. Therefore, he was asked to scribe the F.I.R. This is also the prosecution case. Regarding the fact as to why he scribed the F.I.R. at the police station and signed and dated 12.5.77, there is no explanation by him. He does not explain as to why he used the words "today" in the F.I.R when the incident had taken place yesterday i.e. 12.5.77. So he is telling unabashed lie and it is clear that he scribed the F.I.R on 12.5.77 itself and not on 13.5.77 as told by him: So I reject his statement as done by the learned lower court. D.W. 2 Vikram Singh was the tractor man. who brought the injured persons to the police station and hospital in the same night. He admits that people carry torches with them in villages. Further, he says that the injured were rushed to the Hospital in the same night at about 10 p.m. where the Doctor referred them to Muzaffarnagar District Hospital as the case was serious. In this background, his statement that he did not carry the injured from the tube-well of the complainant becomes unbelievable. 27. Thus I find that D.W. 2 Vikram Singh has a changed sides and is not telling the truth. Accordingly, his statement deserves to be rejected. 28. Thus after a thread-bare analysis of the prosecution evidence and circumstances on record, I agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the prosecution case has been proved to the hilt. The learned lower court had the privilege to watch the demeanour of the witnesses, the facility not extended to this court. In absence of any misdirection on his part, the findings arrived at by the learned trial court should not be set aside. Thus the charges against the accused are fully proved. The learned lower court had the privilege to watch the demeanour of the witnesses, the facility not extended to this court. In absence of any misdirection on his part, the findings arrived at by the learned trial court should not be set aside. Thus the charges against the accused are fully proved. The learned counsel urged that the sentence is very severe. I do not agree. Similarly I find that mere passage of time due to judicial process will not help the accused in getting mild sentence specially when it is established that they caused firearm and almost fatal injuries to two persons without any provocation. It was God's grace that two valuable lives were saved. But the accused had left no other option before the victims but to die. Prompt medical aid could save lives of these two persons. Such a blatent disorderly and bold crime should not be leniently looked upon. So, I do not find any force in this contention that the sentence should be reduced. 29. The appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is upheld. The accused are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody at once by the C.J.M. concerned, who shall submit a compliance report to this court within a month. The appeal of the accused Shetal is abated on account of his death. Appeal dismissed.