JUDGMENT 1. - Criminal Appeal No. 67/82, filed by Sarjeet Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 107/82 filed by Balveer Singh arises out of the judgment dated 28.1.1982 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh, hence they are heard and decided by a common judgment.In Criminal Appeal No. 67/82, Sarjeet Singh has been convicted of offence under section 307 IPC and sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00.0/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year. He has also convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.11.1976 at about 1.45 a.m. one Charan Singh, ASI produced the statement of Nichattar Singh and got the case registered. The said statement was recorded at about 12.10 p.m. in the hospital. He stated that at about 6.30 p.m., Ajmer Singh, Sarjeet Singh, Bhadar, Balweer Singh and two other persons after consuming liquor arrived at the house of Ajmer Singh and gave him a call. Ajmer Singh's brother and sister came out of the house. Bhadar, Sarjeet and one other person were carrying guns with them. Accused Ajmer Singh S/o Panjab Singh asked the other accused persons to kill them. On this Bhadar and Sarjeet fired from their guns with an intention to kill the complainant. The pallots hit the various parts of the body of Nichattar Singh and Smt. Baldeo Kaur. On this information, police registered a case for offence under section 307 IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet for the offence under section 307 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and produced number of documents. The trial Judge convicted the appellants as stated above. 4. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Nichattar Singh has improved his statement. It is further submitted that the fire from the gun of Sarjeet Sigh hit Mst. Balveer Kaur and not Sarjeet Singh. Thus, the conviction under section 307 IPC is not sustainable. 5. 4. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Nichattar Singh has improved his statement. It is further submitted that the fire from the gun of Sarjeet Sigh hit Mst. Balveer Kaur and not Sarjeet Singh. Thus, the conviction under section 307 IPC is not sustainable. 5. I have read the statement of ail the witnesses and more particularly the statement of Nichattar Singh (PW 1) and Baldeo Kaur (PW 2). Both the witnesses have very categorically stated that Sarjeet fired the gun which injured Nichattar Singh and shot fired by Bhadar injured Mst. Baldeo Kaur. Both are injured witnesses and there is no reason to dis-believe their statement. Paras Jain (PW 3) has proved the injuries in person of Nichattar Singh and Mst. Baldeo Kaur. Dr. Shankar Lal Kaushik (PW 8) X-rayed the injuries of Nichattar Singh. Dr. Paras Jain (PW 4) has stated that there were five gun shot injuries on the Nichattar Singh. He referred two injuries for the opinion of Radiologist. Dr. Shankar Lal Kaushik (PW 8) has stated that there were two pallots in the head of Nichattar Singh. Three pallots were near the chest. One pallot in the arm of the left hand. The injuries on the head were grievous in nature. 6. In view of the statement of the injured witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence, in my opinion, conviction of the appellant Sarjeet Singh under section 307 IPC is well founded. So far as Balbir Singh is concerned, a gun has been recovered from him and he has not produced licence. Thus, his conviction under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act does not required to be disturbed. 7. Consequently, so far as Appeal No. 107/82 filed by Balbir Singh is concerned, the same is partly allowed and while confirming the conviction under section 25(1) of the Arms Act, the sentence is reduced to period already undergone. So far as Appeal No. 67/82 filed by Sarjeet Singh is concerned, his conviction and sentence under section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act is upheld. The appeal is accordingly rejected. *******