Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. Appellant-Radhey Shyam has been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter described as the trial Court) vide his judgment/order of sentence dated 22.3.1996/25.3.1996 as under :- (i) For offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months (ii) For offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days. He has filed the appeal for setting aside his conviction and sentence, whereas complainant-Net Ram has filed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence. 2. On 3.11.1990, at about 9.30 A.M., complainant-Net Ram son of Bed Ram was present at his residence when appellant-Radhey Shyam, having a gun in his hand, accompanied by his accomplices, namely, Sita Ram, Billoo, Raman, Radha Ballab, Daya Ram (since deceased) and Tulia alias Parmod Kumar having lathis and Ballams in their hands, came there raising a `Lalkara that they would go only after constructing the boundary wall on the disputed plot. Appellant- Radhey Shyam is alleged to have fired two shots from his gun, the pallets of which struck Mahabir, Ram Rattan and Babloo on various parts of their bodies, while other persons gave injuries to Rambati and Chander Parbha. On hearing the alarm being raised by the injured persons, Om Parkash and Nihal Chand were attracted to the spot, who intervened and rescued them from the clutches of the assailants. 3. The complainant reported the matter to the police, who, after completion of investigation, submitted a challan against the appellant and others named in the F.I.R. 4. The trial Court charged the appellant and his accomplices for having committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 and 323 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. Besides, the appellant was also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seventeen witnesses. 6. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant and others alleged false implication. They examined three witnesses in their defence and tendered documents Exhibits DX, DY and DZ. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seventeen witnesses. 6. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant and others alleged false implication. They examined three witnesses in their defence and tendered documents Exhibits DX, DY and DZ. DW1-Om Parkash Goel, Statistical Assistant in the Health Department, Delhi deposed that appellant-Radhey Shyam, who was working under him as vaccinator, was present in his office from 8.00 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. on the day of the occurrence. DW2- Akmal Zameel Beg testified that Om Parkash, who was cited as a prosecution witness, was employed in his office as Beldar and on the fateful day, his presence was marked in the attendance register. DW3-Dr. Anita Bansal stated that she had medico-legally examined Anil alias Billu son of Sita Ram and found as many as three injuries on his person caused with sharp edged and blunt weapons. 7. The trial Court, on appraisal of the entire material on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner aforesaid and acquitted his accomplices. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant and others had been falsely implicated as the occurrence is said to have taken place at 9.30 A.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged at 1.25 P.M. Besides, Ram Rattan and Babloo, who allegedly got injuries in the incident on account of fire-arm shots, have not been examined. Moreover, Om Parkash and Nihal Chand, the other cited eye witnesses, have also not been produced in evidence. In view of this, it was sought to be contended that the appellant deserves acquittal as there is no direct and cogent evidence on record to establish his guilt. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the appellant has been rightly convicted as he had caused fire-arm injuries to the injured persons, one of whom has lost one eye. There is sufficient evidence to show that there was a dispute persisting between the parties which provided the necessary motive. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has also contended that the punishment awarded to the appellant deserves to be enhanced and the injured persons are entitled to compensation. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 12. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has also contended that the punishment awarded to the appellant deserves to be enhanced and the injured persons are entitled to compensation. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 12. There is hardly any gain-saying in the plea of the appellant that there was delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. The incident took place at 9.30 A.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged at 1.25 P.M. The complainant-Net Ram had also explained the manner in which he reached the Police Station by travelling on foot and thereafter, by taking lift in a tractor. In any case, a period of few hours can hardly be termed as an inordinate delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. The injured persons, obviously in the wake of fire-arm injuries, were not expected to reach the Police Station first. The primary concern in such a situation would be to get the medical attention. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, on this score, is, therefore, rejected. 13. In so far as the other leg of the argument is concerned that the appellant has been falsely implicated as there is no direct evidence, I am afraid, the same has to be noticed to be rejected again for the reason that injured- Mahabir had no motive except to come out forthrightly with his version. The evidence of the injured persons leaves no room for any ambiguity on that account. The attack was also largely unprovoked and apparently a result of pre-meditation. 14. One of the injured persons, namely, Mahabir son of Rajinder Singh, on medical examination, was found having the following injuries, which were concededly a result of use of fire-arm :- 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1-1/2 cm placed in the centre of fore- heard. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. Punctured wound six in number size about 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm placed on the right side of the scalp. No mark of gun powder or tatooing. Fresh bleeding was present. 3. Punctured wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm placed on the antero-lateral aspect of upper half of left upper half. Fresh bleeding was present. 4. Three punctured wounds placed on the anterior and lateral aspect of right upper arm and fore-arm. Fresh bleeding was present. 5.Punctured wounds three in number placed on the right side of the neck. 3. Punctured wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm placed on the antero-lateral aspect of upper half of left upper half. Fresh bleeding was present. 4. Three punctured wounds placed on the anterior and lateral aspect of right upper arm and fore-arm. Fresh bleeding was present. 5.Punctured wounds three in number placed on the right side of the neck. Supra-scapular region. Fresh bleeding was present. 6. 7.History of fire-arm injury through left eye. There is lot of hemorrhage in the left eye. So punctured wound could not be recognised. This injury was referred to opthalmolgise B.K. Hospital, Faridabad for expert opinion. 15. The seat of injuries on the persons of other injured only enhances the seriousness of the offence. 16. Having regard to the facts in their totality, nothing has been shown to this Court which could persuade it to take a contrary view to that which has been taken by the trial Court. 17. Hence, the conviction of the appellant is perfectly in order. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the occurrence is of the year 1990 and 17 years have elapsed since the appellant was made to face the criminal prosecution. He was 48 years old at the time of framing of charge and by now, he would be fairly advanced in age and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him into custody. In view of this, he prayed that the sentence may be reduced to that of already undergone. 19. The aforesaid prayer was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the State, as also by the learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner. It was pointed out that as a result of the injuries, Mahabir lost one eye in the prime of his life. He was aged 20 years at the time of incident. 20. I have thoughtfully considered this aspect of the matter. 21. It was pointed out that as a result of the injuries, Mahabir lost one eye in the prime of his life. He was aged 20 years at the time of incident. 20. I have thoughtfully considered this aspect of the matter. 21. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1990 and the appellant has faced the consequences of criminal proceedings for the last about 17 years, as also the fact that he would be fairly advanced in age by now and the fact that there was concededly some dispute simmering between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be adequately served if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that of already undergone, provided he pays an amount of Rs. 70000/- as compensation to injured-Mahabir, who lost his one eye, including the amount of Rs. 5100/- already paid by him. Ordered accordingly. The aforestated amount be deposited within a period of three months from today and thereafter, the trial Court shall disburse the same to Mahabir after due notice and verification. In the event of the failure to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated period, the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court shall automatically stand revived and his bail bonds shall be cancelled. 22. With the above observations, the appeal and the revision petition are disposed of.