Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellants suffered conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and in addition to substantive sentence they were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of which they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. Though appellants suffered conviction also under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, no sentence was awarded to them on this count. Appellant no. 2, Chamru Sahni, suffered conviction also under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very brief compass which can be recapitulated with brevity. Arbind Singh (RW. 5) took recourse to public authority by filing a written complaint before Officer-in-charge, Patori police station with accusations that at about 3.00 A.M. on 17th March, 1996 when he questioned propriety of the appellants for harvesting wheat crops standing on the field, on exhortation made by appellant no. 1, appellant no. 2 took recourse to firing causing injury in his left hand. After prosecution was launched, as usual, investigation followed and in course of investigation, the Police Officer entrusted with task of investigation, recorded statement of witnesses, got the injured examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid chargesheet, before the court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined altogether 8 witnesses and those examined at trial include injured, other witnesses, doctor, Police Officer and some formal witnesses. 3. The defence of the appellants was that in fact Arbind Singh suffered injuries at the hands of some fishermen but manifestly tor some oblique reasons the Instant case had been instituted against the appel- lants.The defence, however, did not choose to examine by witness. The trial court on appreciation of evidences placed on the record while negativing the plea of innocence of appellants, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above. 4. At trial, those who claimed to be ocular witnesses to the incident were Awdhesh Singh (P.W. 2), Harendra Singh (P.W. 3), Hem Naraian Singh (P.W. 4) and Arbind Singh (P.W. 5). 4. At trial, those who claimed to be ocular witnesses to the incident were Awdhesh Singh (P.W. 2), Harendra Singh (P.W. 3), Hem Naraian Singh (P.W. 4) and Arbind Singh (P.W. 5). Arbind Singh (P.W. 5) who was maker of the first information report while reiterating the earliest version stated at trial about appellant no. 2 firing shots on him causing injury in the left hand, on exhortation made by appellant no. 1 when he questioned them for harvesting wheat crops standing in his field. Similar was the case with Awadhesh Singh, P.W.2, Harendra Singh P.W, 3 and Hem Narain Singh P.W. 4 also who had made coherent statements about appellant no. 2 having resorted to tiring causing injury in the left hand of the victim on exhortation made by appellant no. 1 on being objected to by Arbind Singh in harvesting wheat crops standing in his field. The doctor, Sone Lal Rai, who clinically examined the injured noticed one multiple superficial charring wound on dorsal surface of left upper limb, and the injury according to the doctor was simple in nature. I do not consider it necessary to burden my judgment with narrations made by other witnesses who are not ocular. However, the Investigating Officer during investigation has recorded finding that he found the wheat crop field to be that of the informant, Arbind Singh. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants who did not choose to challenge the finding of the court below on merit, would, however, urge that though appellant no. 1 has remained in custody for more than nine months though he was not the assailant, about appellant no. 2, it is urged that he remained in custody for more than 19 months. Learned counsel for the appellants would draw my attention to some more mitigating circumstance and it is urged that the appellants are none-else but father and son, who in exercise of their right for harvesting crop, went to the field but however as has been stated by the witnesses, they committed overt act causing injury to the victim. Since case was instituted in the year 1996, the appellants have suffered mental agony of protracted prosecution for about seven years. Since case was instituted in the year 1996, the appellants have suffered mental agony of protracted prosecution for about seven years. The finding recorded by the doctor evidently suggests that though injury was multiple but superficial and simple in nature, and taking into consideration all these attending circumstances of the case and also mitigating circumstances highlighted at bar, while finding recorded by the court below finding appellants guilty under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld, their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody and as for conviction of appellant no. 2 under Section 27 of the Arms Act it is also upheld and the sentence on this count is also reduced to the period already undergone by him. The finding of the court below imposing fine on the appellants is however set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the manner stated above. Since appellant no. 2, Chamru Sahni, is shown to be in custody, he is directed to be set free at once if not wanted in any other case.