Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 17.8.1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which the appellant Sukhchain Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo R.I. for six months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 307 IPC. In default, he was directed to further undergo R.I. for four months. He was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, accused Sadha Singh, father of appellant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 30.5.1994 at about 10 P.M. Jit Singh complainant was sitting with Bakhshish Singh in front of his Bethak, when Sukhchain Singh, appellant, who is the real brother of his son-in-law Jagtar Singh came there and disclosed before them that he had a quarrel with Jagtar Singh. The accused also disclosed that Nindro, Jagtar Singh and Sandeep had got injuries in this incident and were lying at the Bethak. The complainant and Bakshish Singh immediately rushed towards the spot and found Nindro lying there. Jagtar Singh and his son Sandeep were taken to hospital. The mother of Jagtar Singh informed that accused Sukhchain Singh had a quarrel with his brother Jagtar Singh on the question of parking of tractor in the Deori and Sukhchain Singh had fired shorts with his rifle, which hit at Nindro, Jagtar Singh and Sandeep. In the said firing, Nindro had died. On getting information, the Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Nindro lying there. The investigation continued and Sukhchain Singh and Sadha Singh were challaned. 3. After completion of investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined Rishi Ram, PW-1, Satpal Singh, PW-2, HC Sarabjit Singh, PW-3, Sandeep Singh, PW-4, Dr. Gopal Dass, PW-5, Dr. I.B. Aggarwal, PW-6, Dr. Jaswant Singh, PW-7, Bhola Singh, PW-8, Jagtar Singh, PW-9, Dr. 4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined Rishi Ram, PW-1, Satpal Singh, PW-2, HC Sarabjit Singh, PW-3, Sandeep Singh, PW-4, Dr. Gopal Dass, PW-5, Dr. I.B. Aggarwal, PW-6, Dr. Jaswant Singh, PW-7, Bhola Singh, PW-8, Jagtar Singh, PW-9, Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, PW-10, Jit Singh, PW-11, Bhagwant Kaur, PW-12, Gurbachan Singh, PW-13 and SI Mohinder Singh PW-14. 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. He stated that a quarrel had taken place between him and his brother Jagtar Singh on the question of parking of tractor in the Deori. He, however, pleaded innocence and denied all the circumstances appearing in the evidence. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 6. The learned trial Court, after hearing the defence counsel and learned PP for the State found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him vide judgment and order dated 17.8.1996 stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, against which the present appeal has been filed. 7. Mr. Mann, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that there is delay in lodging the FIR. He submitted that the occurrence had taken in the area of Village Sur Singh. Jit Singh, complainant, who is father of deceased Ninder Kaur, was summoned from his village. He connived with the police and changed the genesis of occurrence and he made the appellant aggressor. However, from the evidence on record, it is proved that there was a quarrel between Jagtar Singh and Sukhchain Singh, appellant, on the ground of parking of tractor in the Deori. He also pointed out that there was exchange of fires between the appellant and Jagtar Singh. When Jagtar Singh was firing on the appellant, Ninder Kaur, his wife, came in front of him, as a result of which she sustained fire injuries on her person and died on the spot. He further contended that Jagtar Singh had admitted in his evidence that when the firing was going on, Gursewak had gone towards the appellant Sukhchain Singh and was standing at a distance of 1-1/2 karams from him (appellant) and then shots fired by Jagtar Singh hit Gursewak Singh. He also contended that Jagtar Singh had also admitted that his wife came forward to stop him from firing and in that process, she also received fire injuries. He also contended that Jagtar Singh had also admitted that his wife came forward to stop him from firing and in that process, she also received fire injuries. He further contended that Gursewak, brother of the appellant and Jagtar Singh, had not supported the case of the prosecution on the ground that the appellant had fired a shot at Jagtar Singh, the pellets of which hit him. He further contended that from the evidence of Jagtar Singh, injured, it is established that he and the appellant were taking the position behind the pillar in the house near their rooms for the purpose of firing. He also contended that no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW-4 Sandeep Singh, who is son of Jagtar Singh as he was living with his maternal grandfather Jit Singh and was tutored to make a statement against the appellant. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant but found the same to be without any substance. 9. The delay ipso facto is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is fatal when the prosecution introduces a false witness, who has not witnessed the occurrence and involves an innocent person as an accused. The prosecution has examined Bhagwan Kaur as PW-12. She had not supported the case of the prosecution in totality but had deposed in her statement that there was a Deori in their house and they went inside the house from that Deori. Her son Sukhchain Singh (appellant) used to park his tractor in that Deori. Her another son, Jagtar Singh, also brought tractor from outside on the day of occurrence. An altercation took place between her sons, Jagtar Singh and Sukhchain Singh on account of parking of tractor. She also admitted that the appellant had brought the gun himself and shots were exchanged between Jagtar Singh and the appellant. PW-4 Sandeep Singh and PW-9 Jagtar Singh, who are stamp witnesses in this case, deposed that they received injuries from the shots fired by the appellant. PW-9 Jagtar Singh had deposed that he had fired in the air in self-defence. On the other hand, the appellant had not given any version that he fired at Jagtar Singh in the right of his private defence. PW-9 Jagtar Singh had deposed that he had fired in the air in self-defence. On the other hand, the appellant had not given any version that he fired at Jagtar Singh in the right of his private defence. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no explanation had been furnished by him that why he had fired the shots and as to whether Nindro had received the injuries on her person from his firing or from the firing of Jagtar Singh. 10. We have perused the site plan, Ex. PW-1/A. The appellant and injured Jagtar Singh were living in the same house and their rooms were facing each other. The room of Jagtar Singh, injured, was towards west while that of appellant was towards the east. The empty of 12 bore were recovered from point D. This shows that shots were fired from point D. The victim was at point B. The distance between points D and B is 70 feet. The room of Gursewak Singh was also facing the room of the appellant. In the said incident, Gursewak Singh, had also received the injuries. He was examined by PW-6 Dr. I.B. Aggarwal, Medical Officer, PHC Sur Singh, who found the following injuries on his person :- "1. A lacerated wound 1/4 x 1/4 cm present the plam of left hand 3 cms. above the base of ring finger. Clotted blood was present. Margins were inverted and advised for X-ray. 2. A lacerated wound 1/4 x 1/4 cm present on the basis of fifth/phalynx of left hand on its dorsal surface. Margins were everted. Clotted blood was present and advised X-ray. 3. A lacerated wound 1 cm x .25 cm with bluish red swelling 3 cm long, running along the wound towards mid-line. The wound was present on the left side of the abdomen, 15 cm below the left nipple and 7 cm left to the umbilicus. Clotted blood was present and advised for X-ray." 11. As per the appellant, Gursewak Singh had received the injuries when he was at a distance of 1-1/2 Karams from him. If the shots fired by Jagtar Singh with his 12 bore gun hit Gursewak Singh, then the appellant must have received the pellet injuries along with Gursewak Singh. However, in the case in hand, the appellant has not received any injury. If the shots fired by Jagtar Singh with his 12 bore gun hit Gursewak Singh, then the appellant must have received the pellet injuries along with Gursewak Singh. However, in the case in hand, the appellant has not received any injury. This shows that Gursewak Singh had not received injuries from the shots fired by Jagtar Singh, rather he had received injuries from the shots fired by the appellant when he was standing by the side of Jagtar Singh. Furthermore, the room of Gursewak Singh adjoined the room of Jagtar Singh. It shows that Gursewak Singh had come out of the room after noticing the firing in the Deori. After scanning the evidence of PW-4 Sandeep Singh, PW-9 Jagtar Singh and PW-12 Bhagwant Kaur, we have come to the conclusion that from the shots fired by the appellant, Nindro had died while Sandeep Singh, Jagtar Singh and Gursewak Singh had sustained injuries. 12. The next contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause injury to Nindro as it was a sudden fight between two brothers and per chance, Nindro came in front of her husband and fire hit her, has also no merit. He submitted that under these circumstances, when there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill Nindro, he could not be held guilty under Section 302 IPC and only offence under Section 304 Part I IPC is made out. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Hardev Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 179 and Gurmail Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1982 Cr.L.J. 1946. 13. The murder has been defined in Section 300 IPC, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- "300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or - 2ndly. - If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or - 3rdly. - If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or - 3rdly. - If, it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or - 4thly. - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Illustrations (a) to (c) xx xx xx (d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual. Exceptions 2 to 4 :- xx xx xx" A perusal of clause fourthly shows that if the act is done by the offender imminently dangerous and that in all probabilities that will cause death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death, then the case will fall under clause Fourthly of Section 300. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Prasad, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 881, it has been held as under by the Honble Apex Court :- ".... Although clause fourthly is usually invoked in those cases where there is no intention to cause the death of any particular person (as the illustration shows) the clause may on its terms be used in those cases where there is such callousness towards the result and the risk taken is such that it may be stated that the person knows that the act is likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." Similar view has been taken by the Honble supreme Court in Abdulise Suleman v. State of Gujarat, 1994(1) RCR(Crl.) 677 (SC) : 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 668. 14 Gurmail Singhs case (supra) and Hardev Singhs case (supra), as cited by learned counsel for the appellant, are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the weapon used in those cases was not fire arm whereas in the case in hand, the appellant had fired shots from his .12 bore gun and his said act was imminently dangerous because the firing may cause bodily injuries to anybody. As noticed above, the shots fired by the appellant hit Nindro, due to which she died on the spot. Even Jagtar Singh, Sandeep Singh and Gursewak Singh had also received injuries in the said firing. Therefore, the learned trial Court has, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 read with Sections 301 IPC, 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. There is no legal infirmity in the said judgment and order. The up-shot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.