Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. State of Punjab has filed present appeal seeking conviction of sole respondent Gurnater Singh, who was tried for the offences under Sections 307, 308 and 450 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and has since been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sangrur vide order dated 30.3.1999. He was tried for an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code for causing injury with gun shot to Sukhbir Singh, PW-3, under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code for causing injury by wooden rafter to Mohinder Kaur, PW-4, mother of Sukhbir Singh, and under Section 450 of Indian Penal Code for trespassing into the dwelling unit of the injured and under Section 27 of the Arms Act for using the gun of Sukhbir Singh, PW-3, for causing him injury. 2. Occurrence leading to the injuries to Sukhbir Singh and Mohinder Kaur, as per prosecution version, had taken place on the intervening night of 27/28.7.1997 at 1.30 AM. FIR with regard to the incident came to be recorded on the statement, Ex. PC, made by Sukhbir Singh, PW-3, which was recorded at Civil Hospital, Sangrur, by ASI Gurdeep Singh, PW-8. On the basis of statement made by Sukhbir Singh, formal FIR, Ex.PC/II, came into being at 5.15 AM on 28.7.1997. 3. While lodging the FIR, Sukhbir Singh, PW-3, stated that he was resident of village Kheri and doing agricultural work. On 28-7-1997 at about 1.30 AM he was sleeping on the Chubara of his house, whereas, his wife Inderjit Kaur and mother Mohinder Kaur were sleeping in the courtyard, outside the Chubara. He heard the shrieks of his mother. He came out after taking the licenced rifle 315 bore. At that time, en electric bulb was glowing outside. He saw that Gurnater Singh son of Baldev Singh, who was grandson of his fathers elder brother Sarwan Singh, was hitting wooden rafter on the head of his mother. On seeing him, he scuffled with him and during this, after snatching his licenced rifle, Gurnater Singh fired a shot towards him with an intention to kill him. At this, he pushed down the barrel of rifle towards the ground with his hand and one bullet hit on his left thigh. He fell down at the spot, Gurnater Singh then fled away from the spot. At this, he pushed down the barrel of rifle towards the ground with his hand and one bullet hit on his left thigh. He fell down at the spot, Gurnater Singh then fled away from the spot. Sukhbir Singh further stated that Gurnater Singh had come to their house with an intention to commit a theft. His neighbours removed him and his mother and got them admitted to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. 4. The prosecution during the course of trial, examined Dr. Parbhat Kumar, Medical Officer, as PW-5, who stated that on 28.7.1997 to 2.30 AM, he had examined Sukhbir Singh and found the following injuries on his person :- "1. Lacerated wound 1.25 cms in diameter with inverted margins situated on the anterior lateral aspect of middle of left thigh. Clotted and fresh blood was present. Blackening was present. X-ray was advised. 2. Lacerated wound 7 cms x 5 cms on the back and medial border of left thigh in its middle with averted margins. Clotted and fresh blood was present. 3. Abrasion on the front of right knee. Clotted blood was present." 5. Whereas, injuries 1 and 2 were declared grievous, injury No. 3 was found to be simple. Duration of injuries was fresh and kind of weapon used for injuries 1 and 2 was fire arm and blunt for injury No. 3. On the same night at 3.00 AM, he examined Mohinder Kaur and found the following injuries on her person :- "1. Reddish contusion 8 cms x 1.5 cms with swelling on the dorsum of upper part of left forearm in its middle. Advised X-ray. 2. Lacerated wound 8 cms x 3/4 cm with swelling on the top of right side of frontal area, just lateral to mid line. Fresh and clotted blood was present. X-ray was advised." 6. The injuries were kept under observation for X-ray report. Probable duration of injuries was 24 hours and kind of weapon used was blunt. On the request of the police, Ex. PF, dated 28.7.1997, he declared injured Sukhbir Singh fit to make statement. On the same date as well he declared Mohinder Kaur fit to make statement. Dr. Suresh Singla, Civil Hospital, Sangrur, who was examined as PW-9 and who had conducted X-ray of Mohinder Kaur and gave his report, Ex. PT, stated that there was no bone injury on the left forearm and skull. On the same date as well he declared Mohinder Kaur fit to make statement. Dr. Suresh Singla, Civil Hospital, Sangrur, who was examined as PW-9 and who had conducted X-ray of Mohinder Kaur and gave his report, Ex. PT, stated that there was no bone injury on the left forearm and skull. Sukhbir Singh and his mother Mohinder Kaur, who were examined as PW-3 and PW-4, respectively, fully supported the prosecution case. Dharaminder Singh, Draftsman, PW-2, prepared the site plan, which he proved as Ex. PB, in his statement. Nothing material came from the cross-examination adverted to Sukhbir Singh, PW-3. The witness was, however, given a suggestion that his mother and wife had quarrelled with each other and his wife gave wooden plank blow to his mother and when he tried to intervene, his rifle accidentally went off and it hit his thigh, which he denied. Nothing worthwhile came from the cross-examination adverted to Mohinder Kaur, PW-4, as well. The said witness was also been given the same suggestion, as was given to PW-3, which she had denied. There is no need to make a reference of other evidence led by the prosecution but for to state that ASI Gurdeep Singh, PW-8, who had investigated the case, deposed with regard to the steps that he had taken in that connection. 7. The respondent when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, besides denying the incriminating material put to him, stated that he was innocent. His father Baldev Singh was married at village Kheri in the family of the complainant. He had his cases against his in-laws for a number of years and he had been implicated falsely due to strained relations of his father with his father-in-law. He led no evidence in defence. 8. Mr. S.S. Randhawa, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, vehemently contends that offence against the respondent was proved to the hilt as the same was supported by the two injured witnesses, who had no enmity whatsoever with the respondent and had thus, no cause to involve him in a false case. He led no evidence in defence. 8. Mr. S.S. Randhawa, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, vehemently contends that offence against the respondent was proved to the hilt as the same was supported by the two injured witnesses, who had no enmity whatsoever with the respondent and had thus, no cause to involve him in a false case. The defence projected by the respondent was totally hollow and would have no legs to stand as it cannot be imagined that at dead of night wife and mother of PW-3 would start quarrelling with each other and his wife would cause injuries with rather to her mother-in-law and that with a view to separate the two, the gun of PW-3 would hit his mother accidentally. 9. Learned counsel representing the respondent has not been able to controvert any of the contentions of Mr. Randhawa, as noted above and we are satisfied that on the basis of evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, who were themselves injured in the occurrence, the prosecution had proved that the respondent alone was guilty of the crime. These witnesses had no reason whatsoever to involve an innocent person and let go the real culprit. The defence projected by the respondent in view of the submission made by learned counsel, as noted above, does appear to be made up one. The ocular evidence is fully supported by the medical evidence as well and it is also a case, where the matter was reported to the police as early as possibly it could be. It may be recalled that the occurrence had taken place at 1.30 AM on the intervening night of 27/28.7.1997. Statement of injured Sukhbir Singh was recorded at 5.15 AM on 28.7.1997 itself at Civil Hospital, Sangrur by ASI Gurdeep Singh, PW-8. The view taken by learned trial Judge in acquitting the respondent is not possible at all. We are convinced that on the basis of evidence, supported by medical evidence, no other view but for that the respondent was guilty of offence, that he was charged, was possible. Resultantly, we accept this appeal and set aside order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dated 30.3.1999. 10. Insofar as, sentence is concerned we would like to mention that the respondent is related to the complainant party as would be clear from the reading of FIR itself. Crl. Misc. Resultantly, we accept this appeal and set aside order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dated 30.3.1999. 10. Insofar as, sentence is concerned we would like to mention that the respondent is related to the complainant party as would be clear from the reading of FIR itself. Crl. Misc. No. 22414 of 2003 has been filed by Sukhbir Singh, the main injured eye witness, for bringing on record compromise deed arrived at between him and respondent Gurnetar Singh. The same is accompanied by an affidavit of Sukhbir Singh wherein it is mentioned that he and accused are very close relations as he is the real cousin brother of mother of the accused and also that father of mother of the accused and his father were real brothers and that in order to avoid any bad blood and to have cordial relations between him and the accused, a compromise has been arrived at between them and further that he does not want to pursue the matter in this Court any more. It has further been mentioned that his family and family of the accused want to live in peace even for themselves as also for the future generations. The respondent has already undergone sentence for a period of one year, five months and 20 days as per the jail certificate produced by Mr Randhawa. 11. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold respondent guilty for an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentence him to the period already undergone by him. He is also held guilty under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code with regard to the injuries caused by him to Mohinder Kaur, which, as mentioned above, were simple, even though, on the head and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. We also hold him guilty under Section 450 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, each, i.e., on both the counts. However, the sentence imposed upon the respondent, as mentioned above, shall run concurrently. The net result would be that the respondent (sentence ?) imposed upon him under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is the one which he has already undergone. However, the sentence imposed upon the respondent, as mentioned above, shall run concurrently. The net result would be that the respondent (sentence ?) imposed upon him under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is the one which he has already undergone. The order of acquittal dated 30.3.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the manner, fully indicated above.