Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. Appellant Surjit Singh has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order of sentence dated 12.3.1997 passed by Shri L.R. Roozam, Additional Sessions Judge, Zira in case FIR No. 98 dated 11.7.1990, Police Station Zira under Sections 148/307/149 IPC, whereby he has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and has been ordered to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 22.6.1990, at about 12.30 P.M. Mukhtiar Singh complainant along with his elder brother Gurmej Singh and his younger brother Rajinder Singh was going on foot towards Bus Stand for boarding bus for going to Moga for purchasing fertilizer and when they reached near the bus stand situated on the way of Baba Jhugianwala, Jagmohan Singh alias Jagga son of Surat Singh, Surjit Singh son of Narain Singh, Balwinder Singh alias Nihang son of Amrik Singh, Binder Singh son of Niranjan Singh and Ginder Singh son of Niranjan Singh accused were seen coming on a tractor towards them on the metalled road. At that time, Jagmohan Singh accused was having a .12 bore DBBL gun in his hand and on seeing them, Jagmohan Singh accused fired from his DBBL gun towards them and pellets of the shot hit Mukhtiar Singh on the left side of his chest, on the left side of his abdomen and left wrist joint. Mukhtiar Singh, complainant further stated in his statement before the police that accused Surjit Singh then took the gun from Jagmohan Singh accused and fired a shot, pellets of which hit his brother Rajinder Singh on the left side of his chest, two pellets hit on the bicap of his left arm and then all the three brothers Mukhtiar Singh, Gurmej Singh and Rajinder Singh ran towards the house of their brother-in-law Jit Singh. However, all the five accused chased them on the tractor up to the house of their brother in law Jit Singh and there also they were raising lalkaras and kept on firing. Mukhtiar Singh complainant and his brothers went inside the house of Jit Singh and after some time all the five accused went away on their tractor along with the fire arms. Mukhtiar Singh complainant and his brothers went inside the house of Jit Singh and after some time all the five accused went away on their tractor along with the fire arms. Gurmej Singh PW5 took Mukhtiar Singh and Rajinder Singh injured to Civil Hospital, Zira, where they were medico legally examined by the doctor and were admitted. The motive behind the occurrence is stated to be that about three years ago prior to the present occurrence, Surat Singh father of accused Jagmohan Singh was murdered by the complainant party and in that case, Mukhtiar Singh complainant was convicted and sentenced and on the day of occurrence Mukhtiar Singh, complainant was on parol and in order to take revenge, all the accused gave injury on the person of Mukhtiar Singh and Rajinder Singh by fire arm with the intention to kill them. 3. On 23.6.1990, ASI Ram Parkash who was posted in Police Post Fatehgarh Panj Toor, on receipt of question from SHO, Police Station, Zira, reached Police Station Zira and procured copies of medico legal reports of Mukhtiar Singh and Rajiander Singh from Daljit Singh MHC. Then ASI Ram Parkash reached Civil Hospital, Zira and there the doctor declared both Mukhtiar Singh and Rajinder Singh unfit to make statement on application Ex. PF. Then again on 23.6.1990 ASI Ram Parkash went to Civil Hospital, Zira and there he submitted application Ex. PF again before the doctor and the doctor opined vide his endorsement Ex. PF/2 that both Mukhtiar Singh and Rajinder Singh injured were fit to make statements and then ASI Ram Parkash recorded statement Ex.PJ of Mukhtiar Singh which was read over to him and after admitting its contents Mukhtiar Singh put his thumb impression thereon. ASI Ram Parkash then made his endorsement Ex. PJ/1 on the statement Ex. PJ of Mukhtiar Singh and took the same to police station and got recorded D.D.R. No. 8 dated 23.6.1990 in the police station. On 11.7.1990, on receipt of the X-ray report formal FIR Ex. PJ/2 was recorded in the police station by S.I Udham Singh, SHO on the basis of the statement Ex. PJ of Mukhtiar Singh. 4. On 11.7.1990, ASI Ram Parkash went to the place of occurrence and inspected the spot at the instance of Rajinder Singh PW and prepared rough site plan Ex. PQ with correct marginal notes. PJ/2 was recorded in the police station by S.I Udham Singh, SHO on the basis of the statement Ex. PJ of Mukhtiar Singh. 4. On 11.7.1990, ASI Ram Parkash went to the place of occurrence and inspected the spot at the instance of Rajinder Singh PW and prepared rough site plan Ex. PQ with correct marginal notes. ASI Ram Parkash searched for the accused and conducted raids at their houses and fields but they could not be traced out. On 18.7.1990, Gian Singh Sarpanch of village Daulawala produced all the five accused, namely Jagmohan Singh, Surjit Singh, Balwinder Singh, Binder Singh and Ginder Singh before ASI Ram Parkash in Police Post Fatehgarh Panjtoor along with one DBBL gun Ex.P1, six live cartridges Exs.P2 to P7 and tractor bearing No. PCQ 3054. The gun and cartridges were taken into possession by ASI Ram Parkash vide memo. Ex.PL attested by HC Kuldip Singh and Gian Singh Sarpanch while tractor and copy of Registration certificate Ex.P8 of the tractor were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PM, which was also attested by H.C. Kuldip Singh and Gian Singh Sarpanch. On personal search of all the five accused nothing was recovered for which memo. Ex. PN was prepared which was attested by H.C. Kuldip Singh and Gian Singh Sarpanch. Scaled site plan Ex. PK was got prepared from Ravinder Singh Zirbi at the instance of Rajinder Singh PW. On return to the police station ASI Ram Parkash deposited the case property with the MHC and all the five accused were lodged in police lock up. After completion of the investigation, all the five accused were challaned by Inspector Surinder Singh, S.H.O. of Police Station, Zira. 5. On finding prima facie case for the offence under Section 148 IPC against all the five accused, under Section 307 IPC against accused Jagmohan Singh and appellant Surjit Singh and under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC against accused Balwinder Singh, Binder Singh and Ginder Singh. The charges were framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Sukhdev Singh,PW 1 Dr.S.K.Sharma, Medical Officer, Department of Clinical Pathology, Medical College, Amritsar, PW2, Rajinder Singh, PW3, Mukhtiar Singh, complainant, PW4, Gurmej Singh,PW5, Ravinder Singh Zirbi, PW6, L.C. Kuldip Singh, PW7, H.C. Jaswinder Singh, PW8, SI Ram Parkash, PW9. The charges were framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Sukhdev Singh,PW 1 Dr.S.K.Sharma, Medical Officer, Department of Clinical Pathology, Medical College, Amritsar, PW2, Rajinder Singh, PW3, Mukhtiar Singh, complainant, PW4, Gurmej Singh,PW5, Ravinder Singh Zirbi, PW6, L.C. Kuldip Singh, PW7, H.C. Jaswinder Singh, PW8, SI Ram Parkash, PW9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. wherein they denied the prosecution allegations and complained of false implication. A further plea was taken by accused Jagmohan Singh that his father was murdered by Mukhtiar Singh and others and in that case, they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and their appeals were dismissed up to the Honble Supreme Court and to take revenge, this false case was implanted against him and others in connivance with the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned judgment held that the prosecution has successfully brought home guilt to Jagmohan Singh and appellant Surjit Singh under Section 307 IPC beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against all the accused for an offence under section 148 IPC and under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC against Balwinder Singh, Binder Singh and Ginder Singh. Thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide his order dated 12.3.1997 sentence the appellant Surjit Singh and Jagmohan Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 2 months each. 6. The present appeal has been filed by Shri Surjit Singh son of Narain Singh son of Sohan Singh (accused No. 2) only. 7. Shri Vipan Ghai, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur has erred while relying upon the statement of Gurmej Singh PW5 to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. According to the learned counsel, presence of Gurmej Singh, PW5 at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful, as medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular version. According to the learned counsel, presence of Gurmej Singh, PW5 at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful, as medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular version. Moreover, there was a delay of 22 hours in recording DDR, which was recorded at 10.20 A.M. on 23.6.1990, whereas the occurrence happened at 12.30 P.M. on 22.6.1990 and the prosecution has failed to explain this delay and the said delay has been successfully utilized for implicating innocent persons. It was further argued that after recording statement Ex. P.J. of Mukhtiar Singh, complainant, the Investigating Officer did not find the matter free from doubt and therefore, firstly only entry in the DDR was made and the FIR Ex. PJ/2 was recorded on 11.7.1990 i.e., after the expiry of about 19 days. Lastly, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that sentence awarded to the appellant is on the higher side as the injuries were declared simple in nature. 8. On the other hand, Shri P.S. Grewal, AAG, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab has argued that the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity and is liable to be upheld as the offence against the accused Surjit Singh has been proved from the ocular as well as medical evidence on record. It has also been proved that there was enmity between the parties. The learned State counsel has also argued that already a lenient view has been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, even though the guilt of the accused appellant has been proved on record and the sentence awarded to the appellant was proportionate to the offence committed by him. Thus the learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant to say that the offence against the appellant is not proved beyond doubt as the medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular version is devoid of any force. The statement of Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW2 do establish on record that two injuries which he found on the person of Rajinder Singh were fire arm injuries, which are reproduced as under :- 1. A lacerated punctured wound with inverted margins 0.25 cm. x 0.25 cm. on the anterior side of the left chest 7.5-cm. vertical to the left nipple. The statement of Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW2 do establish on record that two injuries which he found on the person of Rajinder Singh were fire arm injuries, which are reproduced as under :- 1. A lacerated punctured wound with inverted margins 0.25 cm. x 0.25 cm. on the anterior side of the left chest 7.5-cm. vertical to the left nipple. Corresponding hole was present in the shirt. Advised X-ray. 2. Two lacerated punctured would each measuring 0.25 cm. x 0.25 cm. on the anterior side of the right arm in its middle third 1 cm. away from each other. Corresponding hole was present in the shirt which was blood stained." 9. In his statement Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW2 has clearly stated that these injuries were firearm injuries. In his cross examination, he has no where stated that injuries on the person of Rajinder Singh injured, which on medical examination, he found, could not be fire arm injuries. This witness has only stated that possibility cannot be ruled out regarding the fact that injury No. 2 on the person of Rajinder Singh could be caused by penetrating Sua and inserting the pellets in it. However, there is no such evidence on record to support this contention of the appellant. The medical evidence is consistent with the eyewitness account of Gurmej Singh, PW5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that presence of Gurmej Singh, PW5 at the place of occurrence was doubtful is no merit and is liable to be rejected. The factum of Gurmej Singh, PW5 accompanying the deceased Rajinder Singh and complainant Mukhtiar Singh is also mentioned in the D.D.R. Ex. PJ, i.e., statement of Mukhtair Singh, complainant, which was recorded on 23.6.1990 and therefore, there is no force in the argument that Gurmej Singh PW5 has been introduced by the police at a later stage. 10. Shri Ghai has also raised argument that the FIR Ex. PJ/2 was recorded on 11.7.1990 and thus there is a delay of 18 days, which is fatal to the case. However, this argument has no force as the D.D.R. was recorded on 23.6.1990 itself and thereafter, the Investigating Officer has inquired the matter and thereafter, formal FIR Ex. PJ/2 was recorded. In his statement, Ram Parkash, SI PW9 has given a detailed account of the investigation, he made in the case. However, this argument has no force as the D.D.R. was recorded on 23.6.1990 itself and thereafter, the Investigating Officer has inquired the matter and thereafter, formal FIR Ex. PJ/2 was recorded. In his statement, Ram Parkash, SI PW9 has given a detailed account of the investigation, he made in the case. He has stated that on receipt of a request from SHO Police Station Zira on 22.6.1990, he went to Police Station and procured medico legal report of the injured from Daljeet Singh, MHC and thereafter, he went to Civil Hospital, Zira where the doctor declared both the injured fit to make a statement on his application Ex. PF and then again on 23.6.1990, he went to Civil Hospital, Zira and the doctor gave the opinion Ex.PF2 declaring the injured fit to make statement and thereafter, statement of Mukhtiar Singh complainant was recorded Ex. PJ. After recording the statement Ex. PJ, SI Ram Parkash went to the Police Station and on reaching the police station, he got recorded DDR dated 23.6.1990 in the police station and thereafter on receipt of the X-ray report on 11.7.1990, FIR Ex. PJ/2 was recorded. 11. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no scope for interference in the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC and the same is upheld. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be noticed that the case is pending for the last about 17-1/2 years and the appellant is facing agony of criminal prosecution since then. The appellant has already undergone imprisonment for about 6-1/2 months (as per the version of the counsel for the appellant) and the said fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the State. The purpose of criminal law justice is not only to punish an erring individual but is also to reform him. For this view of mine, I find support from the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India cited as Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 561 (SC). Further in Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, the Honble Supreme Court had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone as the occurrence had taken place 18 years earlier. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 600. 12. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 600. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in view of the opinion of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR(Criminal) 750 : AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372, Gulab Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 756 (P&H), Binder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(2) RCR(Criminal) 618 (P&H), Joginder Singh and another v. State of Haryana, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 239 (P&H). Fine imposed upon the appellant is enhanced to Rs. 20000/- over and above the one already imposed by the trial Court. The fine is directed to be deposited with the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On deposit of fine so made, trial Court will issue a notice to legal heirs of Rajinder Singh, deceased and disburse that amount to them. In case, the fine is not deposited during the stipulated period, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With the above mentioned modification, the appeal stands disposed of.