JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these appeals, filed under sections 374 & 378, Criminal Procedure Code, arise out of one and same impugned judgment and order dated 22.1.1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 57/77, therefore, both these appeals are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is as follows : Khusal Chand (PW 6), S.H.O., P.S., Sadar Bikaner, on receipt of a telephonic message from Medical Jurist, P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner on 20.6.1977 at 6.45 p.m. reached the hospital whereat PW 5 Gurubachan Singh was admitted. He was accompanied by Ramdeo Singh, A.S.I., immediately recorded 'Parcha Sayan' Ex. P/9 of Gurubachan Singh. Gurubachan Singh has stated that he was working as a Turner in the Workshop of Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner and was residing in Quarter Type-VI No. 110 of the R.C.P. Colony, Bikaner along with his family members. Jagroop Singh (accused) was also his co-worker and was also residing in the same colony in Quarter Type-VI No. 112. The accused had enticed away daughter of Harbhajan Singh, also resident of the same colony, about three months prior to the incident. A police case was registered and the same was pending in the Court. During the pendency of the case, accused and his wife had declared that no body should appear as a witness against the accused in the said case else he would be killed to death. Since the complainant as well as his wife were also similarly threatened, they reported the matter to the police and on being enquired by the police, the accused and his wife suspected that they had given statements against the accused. The wife of the Gurubachan Singh, however, did not depose against the accused apprehending danger to her life. However, arousing suspicion about Gurubachan Singh and his wife, the accused and his wife got suspicious and enraged. 3. On 20.6.1977 at about 6 p.m. the complainant came out of his quarter to go to the Flour Mill to fetch the flour and he saw that the wife of the accused was hurling abuses against them on the pretext that they had deposed against them, they would be taken care of. In the meantime, accused turned out of his house and uttered that he would teach a lesson for having tendered evidence against him. In the meantime, accused turned out of his house and uttered that he would teach a lesson for having tendered evidence against him. In the meantime, PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur w/o Gurubachan Singh and PW 20m Prakash also came to the spot. The accused who had a revolver in his possession, immediately aimed at Gurubachan Singh and he fired twice at him. The first shot hit him on his left shoulder while the second one missed and went wide off. Gurubachan Singh was injured and was immediately removed to the hospital. 4. On the basis of this report, an FIR under section 307, Indian Procedure Code as well as under section 27, Arms Act was registered against the accused and investigation was taken up by PW 6 Khushal Chand. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and, pursuant to his information under section 27 of the Evidence Act, vide Ex. P/19, a pistol along with a live cartridge was recovered. Admittedly, the accused did not have any valid licence for its possession and use. This arm was sent for chemical examination to the R.S.F.S.L., Jaipur and, as per Ex. P/27 report, the arm was confirmed to be 6.35 am pistol and the cartridge recovered there along with was also confirmed to be cartridge used in such pistol. It was also confirmed that the pistol was fired prior to its examination. 5. Ex. P/24 sanction for prosecution of the accused under section 25(1)(a), Arms Act, 1959 as obtained from the District Magistrate, Bikaner. 6. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under section 307, IPC as well as under sections 25(1)(a) & 27 of the Arms Act was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. He, in turn, committed the case to the Court of the teamed Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who charged the accused with the commission of the aforesaid offences to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, as many as eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. 7. The accused was also examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. who denied the prosecution story. Therefore, as many as eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. 7. The accused was also examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. who denied the prosecution story. On the contrary, he stated that since he was prosecuted for alleged commission of offences under sections 366, 368, 376 & 363 in the Court and was lastly acquitted on 18.6.1977 and, therefore, his wife was distributing sweets to the neighbours' in the evening of 20.6.1977 while she was passing from front side of the quater of the complainant, his wife enquired about the purpose of the distribution of sweets and, on being told about the purpose and occasion, he uttered that since her husband had committed a serious offence, there was hardly any justification for distributing sweets. In the meantime, Gurubachan Singh came forward and he gave two or three slaps on the cheeks of the wife of the accused. She came wailing and crying to her quarter. On this, he went to Gurubachan Singh to object against his conduct. On this, he was assaulted with a lathi by the brother-in-law of Gurubachan Singh (Deewan Singh). Lastly, Gurubachan Singh also appeared on the scene. He had a revolver in his possession. He was threatened by Gurubachan Singh and since Gurubachan Singh was advancing towards him, he tried to catch hold of him, on which Gurubachan Singh wanted to fire at him but since he had caught hold of him and they grappled with each other and, as a result, the revolver went off as a result of which Gurubachan Singh was hurt. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 8. After completion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under section 307,1PC but he was convicted under section 3241PC and was awarded one year's R.I. thereunder besides he was also convicted under section 25(1) (a) & 27 Arms Act and was awarded six months' and nine months' R.I. respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently whereas sentence passed under section 324 was ordered to run consequently. 9. Being aggrieved, convict-appellant has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 72/79 whereas, the State, being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused-appellant under section 307, IPC has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 315/79. 10. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently whereas sentence passed under section 324 was ordered to run consequently. 9. Being aggrieved, convict-appellant has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 72/79 whereas, the State, being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused-appellant under section 307, IPC has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 315/79. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-Jagrup Singh has contended that the learned trial Judge has based his conclusion of guilt of the accused-appellant merely relying on the ocular testimony of PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur and her husband PW 5 Gurubachan Singh. They are partisan and highly interested witnesses, besides being closest relations of each other, PW 2 Om Prakash was an independent witness who has not supported the prosecution story. There were many other independent witnesses available but none has been produced. Even statements of PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur and PW 5 Gurubachan Singh are contradictory to each other besides also being contrary to the FIR as well as their police statements. 12. The true genesis of the prosecution story has been suppressed. Thus, there is no independent and reliable evidence to corroborate the statements of PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur and PW 5 Gurubachan Singh. Besides, the accused-appellant was also hurt receiving many injuries on his person but no explanation has been given therefor. Thus, the investigation is tainted while the statements of the prosecution witnesses are not wholly reliable. The pistol allegedly recovered in this case is semi-automatic one while, as the prosecution story is, no such shot could have been fired by such a pistol and instead a revolver must have been used in the incident but so is not the prosecution case. Since Harbhajan Singh and the accused Jagroop Singh had compromised the case pending against the accused-Jagroop Singh, there was no immediate motive for the accused-appellant to have attempted to kill Gurubachan Singh. 13. It is further contended that recovery of the alleged fire-arm is not proved beyond doubt. Therefore, the accused-appellant has been wrongly convicted taking an erroneous view of the prosecution evidence and he deserves to be acquitted. 14. 13. It is further contended that recovery of the alleged fire-arm is not proved beyond doubt. Therefore, the accused-appellant has been wrongly convicted taking an erroneous view of the prosecution evidence and he deserves to be acquitted. 14. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the prosecution had succeeded to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt that accused-Jagroop Singh suspected that Gurubachan Singh as well as his wife had given statement against him before the police in connection with the complaint lodged by them under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code and he fired more than once on PW 5 Gurubachan Singh with a deadly fire arm and, therefore, specially when Gurubachan Singh was grievously hurt, there was no scope left for the learned trial Judge to have concluded that there was no case of attempted murder and instead an offence punishable under section 324, IPC alone was made out. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, though rightly relied on the evidence of prosecution but seriously erred in concluding that no offence under section 307, IPC was made out and instead a offence punishable under section 323, IPC besides offences under sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act were made out. 15. As regards Appeal No. 72/79, it has been further argued that having regard to Appeal No. 315/79, there is no merit in this appeal of the accused appellant and the same deserves to be dismissed. 16. Before disposal of the aforesaid contentions, I propose to deal with the prosecution evidence. 17. PW 5 Gurubachan Singh has stated that about three months prior to this incident, Jagroop Singh had kidnapped the daughter of Harbhajan Singh who was also living in their colony in Quarter Type-VI No. 103 and a case was pending. The police approached his wife in his absence for her interrogation in connection with complaint of Harbhajan Singh and his wife who were abused and threatened by the wife of Harbhajan Singh in connection with the kidnapping case of Harbhajan Singh's daughter. The police approached his wife in his absence for her interrogation in connection with complaint of Harbhajan Singh and his wife who were abused and threatened by the wife of Harbhajan Singh in connection with the kidnapping case of Harbhajan Singh's daughter. This enraged the accused as well as his wife since they suspected that the wife of Gurucharan Singh had given statement to their dis-advantage to the police.On 20.6.1977 at about 6 p.m., his wife was looking for her child out side her quarter and he also came out of the quater to fetch flour from the flour mill and he saw that the wife of the accused-appellant was hurling abuses at his wife. Accused Jagroop Singh was standing out side his quater in the open chowk in front of their quarters. He had hardly covered a distance of 10 to 15 paces, the accused's wife advanced towards his own wife, throwing a challenge that she would teach her a lesson for having given statement against her. He turned back and requested the wife of the accused not to quarrel and to go to her quarter. On this, accused challenged him that he would be killed and took out a revolver/pistol from his pocket and immediately fired at him. He was hit on his left shoulder. It started bleeding. He placed his right hand over the bleeding wound and fell to the ground. Accused again fired at him but the same missed him. Smt. Jitendra Kaur made a hue and cry and many persons were attracted. PW 2 Om Prakash took him to the S.D.O. (Irrigation) on his cycle and, thereafter, he was taken to the hospital in a jeep. He was medically examined and was admitted there. He also stated that he remained admitted for about a month for his treatment. His injury was x-rayed and besides his wound was also operated upon. Lastly, he had to go to Chandigarh for further treatment and he remained admitted there for two months and eight days.PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur, while corroborating the above statement of her husband about the date, time and place of occurrence, further stated that she was looking for her child out side her quarter and, in the meanwhile, the wife of the accused came towards her hurling abuses. On coming out of her husband, as above, she advanced towards her. On coming out of her husband, as above, she advanced towards her. She was hurling vulgar abuses suspecting her to have deposed against her in the matter of kidnapping of Harbhajan Singh's daughter and she tried to convince her that she had not stated anything adverse to her. However, the wife of the accused was not convinced and, no sooner her husband (PW 5 Gurubachan Singh) had covered a distance of about 10 paces in the open chowk, he told that they are not to fight with each other and in the meanwhile accused Jagroop Singh challenged Gurubachan Singh and fired at him. He was shot in his left shoulder as a result of which he sat down on the ground. The second fire went wide off. On hearing cries, neighbours turned up. Gurubachan Singh started bleeding and he was lastly taken to the hospital.As stated above, both Gurubachan Singh as well as his wife PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur have stated that, hearing the cries and sound of the shout of the fire arm, many neighbours had collected but, none except PW 2 Om Prakash, has been examined.PW 2 Om Prakash has stated that he was living in the neighbourhood of Gurubachan Singh and the accused in Quarter Type-VI No. 112 in the same colony. He has further stated that at about 6 or 6.30 p.m., he was called out by the wife of Gurubachan Singh and so he came out of his quarter and saw Gurubachan Singh so hurt in his left shoulder. He was bleeding. He told him to take him to the hospital. However, he did not support the prosecution story that the accused-appellant ever did fire in his presence or that he was told either by the injured Gurubachan Singh or any body else that the accused had so hurt Gurubachan Singh. He was got declared hostile by the prosecution and, on his cross-examination, his statement is hardly of any avail to the prosecution as regards the liability of the accused-appellant in respect of his having fired at the injured.As regards the medical evidence, PW 7 Dr. Hanuman Singh Kaswan, Medical Jurist, P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner, stated that Gurubachan Singh was brought to the hospital on 20.6.1977 at 6.45 p.m. in an injured condition and he had carried out his medical inspection. Hanuman Singh Kaswan, Medical Jurist, P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner, stated that Gurubachan Singh was brought to the hospital on 20.6.1977 at 6.45 p.m. in an injured condition and he had carried out his medical inspection. He found following injury on the person of Gurubachan Singh as is described in Ex. P/31 M.L.R.: "A lacerated wound of 1 cm x 7 mm x muscle deep, oval shaped present on anterior aspect of lt. arm in upper ⅓ region. Bleeding fresh. Inverted margins, obliquely placed. No tattooing, no blackening of surrounding area." He also advised for x-ray of the wound of the injured. He also stated that the injury wa caused by a fire-arm and its duration was within three hours. He also stated that general condition of the injured was poor. He also stated that the injury could have been caused by a fire from Article-4 pistol exhibited before him.PW 1 Dr. Ratan Lal, Radiologist, stated that he had x-ray the wound of Gurubachan Singh and, on the basis of x-ray plates Ex. P/2, Ex. P/3, Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5, he found that there was fracture of the upper 1 /3 of the shaft of humerus and a radio opaque metalic foreign body was seen in the scapular region in the soft tissue. He prepared Ex. P/1 report.PW 3 Dr. Nirmal Jain, who was an Orthopaedician at the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner, stated that on 20.6.1977 he attended to Gurubachan Singh whose general condition was poor although he was quite conscious. After examining the condition and nature of his wound, he found that there was deformity of upper end of left humerus confirming the diagnosis of compound fracture of left humerus. Gurubachan Singh was operated at 11.30 p.m. by him. By the next morning, the condition of Gurubachan Singh was allright who was discharged on 21.7.1977, after his partial recovery. He was referred to the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh for further treatment. He has also proved entries of Ex. P/7 Bed Head Ticket.PW 6 Khushal Chand, S.H.O., P.S., Sadar, Bikaner, has stated that he went to the hospital whereat Gurubachan was reported to be admitted on account of his injury and Ramdeo Singh, A.S.I. recorded Ex. P/9 'Parcha Bayan' of Gurubachan Singh, there Ex. P/9 was forwarded to the Police Station, on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered. P/9 'Parcha Bayan' of Gurubachan Singh, there Ex. P/9 was forwarded to the Police Station, on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered. He has stated that he arrested the accused on 20.6.1977 at 11.45 p.m. vide Ex. P/14. Accused gave him information Ex. P/16 to the extent that he had hidden the pistol .35 mm (made in England) with live-cartridge in its magazine, underground ahead of Roadways Depot, Bikaner by the side of the road leading towards Loonkaransar. He, accordingly, led Khushal Chand to the said spot and got Article 4 pistol with magazine and live-cartridge recovered vide Ex. P/19 recovery memo which is signed by the accused himself besides PW 8 Umardeen. He further stated that the said articles were duly packed and sealed on the spot and were, in the same condition, lastly, deposited with the R.S.F.S.L., Jaipur for its chemical examination as per Ex. P/25 and Ex. P/26, Ex. P/7 report was received from the R.S.F.S.L., Jaipur. Lastly, he obtained Ex. P/24 sanction for prosecution of the accused-appellant for offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.PW 8 Umardeen did admit his signatures on recovery memo Ex. P/ 19 but he stated that he had not witnessed the actual recovery of the arm and the ammunition and instead stated that he had signed the same at the behest of PW 6 Khushal Chand. 17. As regards defence, as the learned trial Judge has justifiably concluded, on the basis of evidence, the same has been found to be wholly unreliable and an afterthought one and I do not find any valid reason or basis to disagree with the same. 18. Now, having regard to the statements of PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur and PW 5 Gurubachan Singh, as is also corroborated by PW 2 Om Prakash as well as PW 6 Khushal Chand, who had, immediately after the occurrence, gone to the hospital and in whose presence Ramdeo Singh, A.S.I. recorded Ex. P/9 'Parcha Bayan' of Gurubachan Singh and also visited site of occurrence and prepared Ex. P/8 site plan, leave no doubt about the date, time and place of occurrence which took place in front of the Quarter Type-VI No. 110 which is residence of PW 5 Gurubachan Singh. Besides, having regard to the statements of PW 7 Dr. Hanuman Singh Kaswan, PW 1 Dr. Ratan Lal, Radiologist and PW 3 Dr. P/8 site plan, leave no doubt about the date, time and place of occurrence which took place in front of the Quarter Type-VI No. 110 which is residence of PW 5 Gurubachan Singh. Besides, having regard to the statements of PW 7 Dr. Hanuman Singh Kaswan, PW 1 Dr. Ratan Lal, Radiologist and PW 3 Dr. Nirmal Jain besides Ex. P/1, Ex. P/2, Ex. P/3, Ex. P/4, Ex. P/5, Ex. P/7 & Ex. P/31 M.L.R., as also concluded and held by the learned trial Judge, it is also proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt by the prosecution that PW 5 Gurubachan Singh was hit by a shot of fire-arm in his left shoulder as a result of which he received a wound as is also described in Ex. P/31 by PW 7 Dr. Kaswan. The accused also did not dispute that Gurubachan Singh received fire-arm injury as a result of which he was so hurt. 19. As regards the alleged injuries of accused - Jagroop Singh, noted in Ex. D/2 M.L.R. prepared on 25.6.1977, PW 7 Dr. Kaswan has clearly stated that same appears to have been prepared by Dr. Sharad Kalla who has not been examined by the defence. Besides, there is overwriting in the figure of 25' in the column of date and time of examination of the accused. He had only three minor abrasions on his person and as per his own defence he has clearly stated the brother-in-law of PW 5 Gurubachan Singh, Deewan Chand assaulted him with stick and he was hit by him and there is no direct role assigned to Deewan Singh and, therefore, in case any injury as is the defence of the accused-appellant, was caused to him by Deewan Singh, he did not have any right of private defence of person against PW 5 Gurubachan Singh to have shot at him and to have injured him with a fire-arm. Thus, when the accused-appellant himself has given an explanation about his injuries, the contention of his learned counsel that the prosecution has not come forward with any plausible explanation for the injuries seen vide Ex. D/2 on the person of the accused-appellant, holds no merit and the same is brushed aside being devoid of any merit. 20. Thus, when the accused-appellant himself has given an explanation about his injuries, the contention of his learned counsel that the prosecution has not come forward with any plausible explanation for the injuries seen vide Ex. D/2 on the person of the accused-appellant, holds no merit and the same is brushed aside being devoid of any merit. 20. Now, as regards infliction of the injury, as are the statements of PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur and PW 5 Gurubachan Singh besides, as is also reported in his first version of Ex. P/9 before Ramdeo Singh, in presence of PW 6 Khushal Chand, there is no other evidence since PW 2 Om Prakash has also stated that he came after being called by PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur and he did not see the accused-appellant firing at the injured and instead he found that the injured was hurt and standing holding wound caused on his left shoulder with his hand and he asked him to take him to the hospital. He has even stated that injured did not tell him as to who had caused his injury. Thus, Om Prakash also does not help the prosecution as regards the authorship of the injury of injured person but any how, he partly supports the prosecution case about the place, date and time where at Gurubachan Singh was assaulted and hurt. 21. Admittedly, PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur and PW 5 Gurubachan Singh being wife and husband, are closest relations and are interested in each other against accused-appellant. Merely because they are closest relations and so interested, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on this ground but, as a rule of prudence, the Court has to exercise due care and caution while appraising and considering their testimony and also to exercise checks and counter-checks to separate the truth from falsehood. 22. As already discussed above, PW 5 Gurubachan Singh was hurt in his left shoulder as a result of fire made by the accused-respondent. He was immediately, as is corroborated by PW 2 Om Prakash besides PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur, taken to the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner and Ex. P/9 'Parcha Sayan' was immediately recorded by Ramdeo Singh, A.S.I. as stated by PW 6 Chushal Chand. Smt. Jitendra Kaur also lends full support to his statement. As regard the injury and the person responsible therefor is clearly mentioned in the same. P/9 'Parcha Sayan' was immediately recorded by Ramdeo Singh, A.S.I. as stated by PW 6 Chushal Chand. Smt. Jitendra Kaur also lends full support to his statement. As regard the injury and the person responsible therefor is clearly mentioned in the same. Even as per defence theory, PW 5 Gurubachan Singh was hurt by fire-arm though, which is false and wholly unbelievable, accused-appellant has unsuccessfully tried to wriggle out of his"liability but, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, as is also supported by the medical evidence discussed above, it was the accused-respondent who had intentionally fired at and hurt PW 5 Gurubachan Singh. Since no other independent person from the locality has come forward to depose in support of the prosecution case, it hardly helps the defence. When a dispute arose between two neighbours, in the background detailed above, no body has come forward to annoy either of the parties. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the accused was, at any time, refused access to the statement of Gurubachan Singh having been recorded by a Magistrate in the form of a dying declaration during the trial. Besides, Ex. P/17 original statement is already on record with which PW 5 Gurubachan Singh was confronted at exceptional length and, therefore, no objection against non-availability of such statement does not have any merit. 23. As regards improvements and contradictions, as are also borne out of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge has duly considered the same and I do not find any valid reason to dis-agree with his conclusion that' all these improvements and contradictions being not material for the present decision, hardly makes the testimony of PW 4 Smt. Jitendra Kaur as well as PW 5 Gurubachan Singh unreliable. Though, it appears that the case pending between Harbhajan Singh and the accused-appellant regarding kidnapping of formers daughter, stood disposed of finally before the occurrence yet it cannot be denied that some bad blood was created between the families of Gurubachan Singh and that of the accused-appellant. The latter's family suspected that Gurubachan Singh and his wife had given statements before the police against them and so a bad blood was created and their relations were strained. The latter's family suspected that Gurubachan Singh and his wife had given statements before the police against them and so a bad blood was created and their relations were strained. At the time of occurrence as well, wife of Gurubachan Singh as well as the accused-respondent picked up a quarrel but, in the meantime, Gurubhachan Singh came out of his house and while the wife of the accused-respondent was entering into hot-arguments with Gurubachan Singh, the accused-respondent appeared on the scene and he seized the opportunity to have fired at Gurubachan Singh. He fired twice but he could hit the target only once as a result of which Gurubachan Singh received fire-arm injury on his left shoulder while the second one missed him. Therefore, as per the prosecution, the accused did not fire thrice. This is the simple case of the prosecution that the accused-respondent fired twice and could succeed only once as above and, therefore, it is of no significance that no empty could be recovered from the scene of occurrence by PW 6 Khushal Chand. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with this fact in details and, before the police inspected the site of occurrence, the empty might have been taken away by the persons passing from the place of occurrence. 24. As regards the nature of the injury, the learned Sessions Judge has, while appraising the statement of PW 5 Gurubachan Singh as well as PW 3 Dr. Nirmal Jain, who has treated and performed operation of the wound and injury of Gurubachan, on the basis of statement of Dr. Jain that the fracture of humerus bone of Gurubachan Singh was not caused by the bullet but the same might have been caused by a fall on the ground. PW 5 Gurubachan Singh also stated that, on receiving fire-arm injury, he immediately sat down and thereafter he crawled towards the accused-respondent to grapple with him and did fall to the ground more than twice and, therefore, when the medical evidence does not show that the pellet of the fire-arm shot resulted in fracturing the humorous bone, the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have taken any erroneous view of the evidence available on record to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt that it was the accused-appellant who caused the fracture of humerous bone of the accused. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish that the fire-arm shot was the proximate cause of the fracture of the humerus bone of Gurubachan Singh and, therefore, when a reasonable suspicion was aroused by the learned trial Judge, there is a material specially when there are certain contradictions and improvements in the statement of PW 5 Gurubachan Singh in regard to genesis of the prosecution story as a result of which immediate cause had arisen resulting in the incident. 25. In this view of the matter, as per the prosecution story, the accused-respondent fired from the fire-arm, be it a revolver or a pistol, for the sake of argument and, as a result Gurubachan Singh was so hurt, for the purpose of causing of injury to Gurubachan Singh, the nature of fire-arm is not of much significance. 26. In this view of the matter, though Gurubachan Singh was not far away from accused-respondent at the time, the latter fired at the former and the latter did fire more than once but the same did not hit target. It does not appear, specially on the face of the statement of Gurubachan Singh himself that he sat down after receiving the injury and, thereafter, started crawling towards the accused-respondent to catch hold of him but the accused-respondent did not seize the opportunity to fire at the injured again and that is why his second fire also went quite wide off. Had he intended to kill Gurubachan Singh, he had every opportunity and means and there was no intervening factor which disabled him from killing Gurubachan Singh. He did not do so. This only shows that his only dominant intention was to cause injury to Gurubachan Singh and, therefore, he did not take undue advantage of the situation. 27. In this view of the fact, since the learned trial Judge held the accused-appellant responsible for causing simple injury and, therefore, there is no evidence of conclusive nature to hold that the accused acted with the knowledge or the intention in the circumstances in which had he caused the death of Gurubachan Singh, he could have been liable for commission of murder under section 300, IPC. Therefore, when the learned trial Judge has taken the view, after due consideration of the prosecution evidence and there is no infirmity in the same, that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the accused-appellant committed any offence punishable under section 307, IPC or that he did cause any injury punishable under section 326, IPC, the same cannot be termed to be erroneous and not borne out of the record and, therefore, this Court can hardly be justified in substituting its contrary view. In case two views are equally possible, the one held by the learned trial Judge cannot be displaced solely on this ground. 28. In this view of the fact, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the accused-respondent to convict him either under section 307 or under section 326, IPC and the same deserves to be dismissed. 29. As regards the liability of the accused-respondent under section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, PW 6 Khushal Chand has clearly proved that the accused-respondent pursuant to his information Ex. P/16 got Article-4 semi-automatic pistol, admittedly, for its possession, the accused-respondent did not have any licence, recovered pursuant to such information vide Ex. P/19 recovery memo. The accused gave clear information that he had hidden the arm under ground and he led the investigating officer to the place and got the article recovered. However, PW 8 Umardeen admitted his signatures on Ex. P/19 in token of preparation of the recovery memo but, as is not unusual, he turned hostile to the prosecution and denied to have witnessed the recovery. 30. PW 6 Khushal Chand is a reliable witness and simply because he is a police officer, no doubt can be entertained about his credibility. He has withstood his cross-examination successfully and, therefore, he is a wholly reliable witness. There is no challenge to the statement of Khushal Chand that he had also recovered cartridge of the same pistol along with the pistol and the same were packed and sealed at the site and were deposited with the R.S.F.S.L., Jaipur in the same condition. His statement is also supported by Ex. P/25, Ex. P/26 and lastly Ex. P/27 which is the report of R.S.F.S.L., Jaipur. His statement is also supported by Ex. P/25, Ex. P/26 and lastly Ex. P/27 which is the report of R.S.F.S.L., Jaipur. It has confirmed that the arm so seized is a pistol (made in England) and the ammunition seized there along with is 6.35mm cartridge used in the same arm. This arm has further been certified to be serviceable and to have been fired before the time of its examination. 31. That being so, the accused-respondent is proved, beyond reasonable manner of doubt, to have been in possession of the Article-4 pistol as well as the cartridge and he did not have any licence therefore. He contravened Section 3 of the Arms Act and as such his act is clearly punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Besides, as above, he used the arm in causing injury to PW 5 Gurubachan Singh by firing at him and as such he used the arm unlawfully for commission of such offence and, therefore, his act is also clearly punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. 32. Therefore, as a result of the discussion, the learned trial Judge does not appear to have fallen into error or to have committed any mistake in holding the accused liable for commission of the offences, as above. 33. On the basis of discussion and conclusion so arrived at, there is no merit in the either appeal. They deserve to be dismissed on merit. 34. As regards Appeal No. 72/79, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, relying on the decisions of ldiya & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1979 (4) R.Criminal Code 64 as well as Rajbir v. State of Haryana, 1985 Criminal L.R. (SC) 285 , has submitted that the incident apparently took place dates back to 20.6.1977. The accused-appellant is in the Government service. Looking to the facts and circumstances and nature of the evidence and the unduly long period for which the accused-respondent is facing the ordeal of the trial and the appellate proceedings, looking to the maximum sentences provided under the aforesaid offences, as is also mandated by Section 361, Criminal P.C. the accused-appellant be extended benefit of release on probation of good conduct. The learned Public Prosecutor also could not seriously oppose the same. 35. The learned Public Prosecutor also could not seriously oppose the same. 35. As regards sentencing of the accused-appellant, as has also been argued by the learned counsel for him, this incident is of 20.6.1977 i.e. more than 19 years old. Both the appellant and the injured Gurubachan Singh were living and serving in the same colony and the Department. Having regard to the long pendency of the matter, background of the incident specially when the accused stood acquitted in the kidnapping case in which neither the injured Gurubachan Singh nor his wife were, anyhow, directly interested, antecedents, age and the acts and surrounding circumstances, specially having regard to the fact that sentences provided for the aforesaid offences do not exceed 7 years' imprisonment, there being no special reasons, as warranted by Section 361, Criminal Procedure Code to deprive the appellants of the benefit of release on probation of good conduct under section 360(1) Criminal Procedure Code, are available on the record. 36. However, awarding of substantial compensation is wholly justified to do even justice to the victim Gurubachan Singh as well. 37. As a result of above discussion, as regards the Appeal No. 72/79 deserves to be partly accepted in respect of sentences, as above, only. 38. As regards the State Appeal No. 315/79 the same being devoid of merit, does not warrant acceptance and hence is liable to be dismissed. 39. Therefore, Appeal No. 72/79 is partly accepted. The impugned judgment as regards conviction of the accused-appellant, as per the judgment is affirmed in respect thereof and the appeal against the same is dismissed. However, as regards impugned sentences under the aforesaid sections, imposed on the appellant, this appeal stands accepted in part and the same are set aside and instead it is ordered that in case the appellant undertakes to keep peace and be of good conduct for a period of three years and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 5000/- to appear to undergo sentences as and when called upon to by the trial Court during the aforesaid period, he shall be released on probation as above. Besides, he shall have to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within two months in the trial Court as compensation to be paid to Gurubachan Singh or, in case of his death, to his legal heirs. Besides, he shall have to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within two months in the trial Court as compensation to be paid to Gurubachan Singh or, in case of his death, to his legal heirs. He should file the requisite bonds before the trial Court within a month from today otherwise the original order of sentencing will become operative.The Appeal No. 315/79 is hereby dismissed and order of acquittal under section 307, IPC is affirmed.Appeal partly allowed. *******