JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J.:- The appellants were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur with the allegations that on 6.12.1989 at about 2.00 PM, Jugraj Singh-appellant while armed with his licensed .12 bore SBBL gun fired at Kishan Singh-injured with an intention to kill him after an exhortation having been given by Tarlok Singh-appellant. Vide judgment dated 7.1.1997, the trial Court convicted Jugraj Singh under Sections 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, whereas Tarlok Singh was convicted under Section 307/34 IPC. Vide order of the even date, the trial Court sentenced Jugraj Singh to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for one year. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for four months. Tarlok Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 307/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for one year. Substantive sentences in the case of Jugraj Singh were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On 8.12.1989, Kishan Singh made a statement before ASI Balbir Singh in Daya Nand Hospital, Ludhiana at about 2.50 PM, wherein he stated that he was resident of village Longodeva and doing cultivation. On 6.12.1989, he along with his brother-in-law Jarnail Singh was going on a motor cycle to see his sister Gian Kaur, who was married to Maghar Singh of village Khosa Kotla. Jarnail Singh was driving the motor cycle. When they reached at a distance of two kilometres short of village Khosa Pandav in the area of village Khosa Randhir at about 2 PM, ajeep bearing No. DED 3388 owned by Jugraj Singh came from behind, which was being driven by an unknown person. Tarlok Singh, who generally resided with Jugraj Singh, was sitting by the side of the driver. Jugraj Singh was armed with a single barrel .12 bore gun. While the jeep was still towards the rear of the motor cycle, the driver of the jeep blew horn. Jarnail Singh and Kishan Singh took their motor cycle on to the kacha path on the left side. Jugraj Singh was armed with a single barrel .12 bore gun. While the jeep was still towards the rear of the motor cycle, the driver of the jeep blew horn. Jarnail Singh and Kishan Singh took their motor cycle on to the kacha path on the left side. Tarlok Singh raised lalkara, exhorting Jugraj Singh to teach lesson for causing injuries to him and for causing the death of Gurjant Singh. In the meantime, Jugraj Singh fired a shot from his gun with an intention. to kill, which hit Kishan Singh on his right shoulder. Both Kishan Singh and Jarnail Singh raised alarm. The accused left with their jeep towards the side of Moga, while carrying their weapon with them. 3. Jarnail Singh removed Kishan Singh to Civil Hospital, Moga and then went to his village to give. information. The doctor admitted Kishan Singh in the hospital and medico-legally examined him. Thereafter, Kishan Singh became unconscious. He was then shifted to Daya Nand Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was being treated. 4. According to Kishan Singh, the cause of occurrence was that about 8/9 years earlier, he had fired and hit Jugraj Singh, thus injuring him, besides firing shot at Gurjant Singh, who had died on account of the same. Kishan Singh had, however, been acquitted by the High Court. On that account, both Jugraj Singh and Tarlok Singh fired upon him with an intention to kill him. He prayed for taking action against the accused. 5. After recording statement Ex.PG of Kishan Singh, ASI Balbir Singh sent the same to Police Station, Dharamkot, where formal FIR Ex.PG/2 was recorded on 8.12.1989 at 7.10 PM by ASI Jalour Singh. 6. The investigation was then taken up by ASI Balbir Singh, who reached the place of occurrence in the area of village Khosa Randhir. He prepared site plan Ex. PM and. picked up blood stained soil from the spot vide memo Ex.PN. The accused were searched but they could not be found. On 19.1.1990, ASI Balbir Singh obtained production warrant of Jugraj Singh-accused from the Illaqa Magistrate and arrested him from Central Jail, Ferozepur. He was brought to Police Post, Kot Ise Khan. On the next day, he suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance of the same got recovered one firearm of .12 bore EX.P5 along with duplicate arms licence EX.P8 from his house. He was brought to Police Post, Kot Ise Khan. On the next day, he suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance of the same got recovered one firearm of .12 bore EX.P5 along with duplicate arms licence EX.P8 from his house. The jeep in question was also recovered from the house of Jugraj Singh. Scaled site plan Ex.PC was prepared by Ravinder Singh, draftsman. 7. After completion of the investigation, only Jugraj Singh­ accused was challaned by SHO, Police Station, Dharamkot whereas the name of Tarlok Singh-accused was shown in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 8. After framing of charges against Jugraj Singh-accused, the prosecution examined Kishan Singh-injured as PW-1 and thereafter, made an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning Tarlok Singh accused also for facing trial. Said Tarlok Singh was ordered to be summoned and later-on both Jugraj Singh and Tarlok Singh-accused were charged. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. The prosecution examined Dr. Jai Dev Singh PW-1, Sukhdev Singh, Arms Clerk PW-2, Ravinder Singh, draftsman PW-3, Dr Ramesh SharmaPW-4, Kishan Singh, complainant-injured PW-5, ASI Swaran Singh PW-6, Inspector Gurdarshan Singh PW-7, Constable Narinder Singh PW -8, HC Baljinder Singh PW-9, LC Santokh Singh PW-10, ASI Balbir Singh PW-11 and Dr Kapil Bhatia PW-12 in support of its case. The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports Ex. PS of Chemical Examiner and Ex.PT of the Serologist, besides affidavits Ex.PU of constable Jagjit Singh and Ex.PV of HC Baljinder Singh. 10. The case of the prosecution was then put to the two accused, when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both of them denied correctness of the allegations levelled against them. Jugraj Singh-accused stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that widow of Gurjant Singh had filed a suit for compensation against Kishan Singh PW and he was pursuing that case on her behalf. The suit was decreed for an amount of Rs.78,000/- against Kishan Singh PW and decretal amount was recovered from Kishan Singh through sale of his land and on that account Kishan Singh nursed grudge against him. Tarlok Singh­ accused pleaded that he had not vacated the land of Gurmel Singh etc. and for that reason falsely implicated in the case. 11. Tarlok Singh­ accused pleaded that he had not vacated the land of Gurmel Singh etc. and for that reason falsely implicated in the case. 11. It The accused examined Darshan Singh DW-1, who stated that on the date of the occurrence when Kishan Singh was alleged to have been fired at Jugraj Singh-accused was riot in possession of gun and rather the same stood deposited with M/s Mohal Arms Company, Faridkot and intimation about that was sent to Sub Divisional Magistrate and SHO Police Station, Zira. 12. The trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the FIR was lodged after a long delay of 49 hours which delay has not been explained by the prosecution. The prosecution has produced only Kishan Singh­ injured in support of the ocular account, while Jarnail Singh, ‘who was claimed to be another eye witness of the occurrence, was not produced. Further that, as per the prosecution case, the jeep in which the accused were allegedly travelling had come from behind and the firing was resorted to when the occupants of the jeep were still behind the motor cycle which Kishan Singh and Jarnail Singh were riding, it was well nigh impossible for them to see as to who were the assailants. Besides, the firing was allegedly opened on Kishan Singh and Jamail Singh, but surprisingly only Kishan Singh was hit and Jarnail Singh escaped un-hurt, in spite of the fact that the firing from the gun would result in pellets coming out, which would have hit both the persons and not just one person. Also that there were no pellets marks on the motor cycle of the complainant party. 14. Learned State counsel submitted that the testimony of Kishan Singh PW was sufficient to conclude that it were the accused, who were present at the time of the incident and on an exhortation being made by Tarlok Singh-accused, the firing was opened by Jugraj Singh-accused, as a result of which Kishan Singh PW was injured. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular account. Although there was a long delay in the lodging of the FIR, yet the same has been properly explained. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents brought on record. 16. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular account. Although there was a long delay in the lodging of the FIR, yet the same has been properly explained. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents brought on record. 16. It is clear from the medical evidence that Kishan Singh was hit on the right side of his body. The injury was on the top of the right shoulder, 8 cms below the lobule of ear and 11.5 cms from the mid line. To be precise, the injury found on the person of Kishan Singh PW, as noticed by Dr. Ramesh Sharma PW-4 is as under: “Lacerated punctured wound 5 x 3 cms, on the top of right shoulder region, 8 cms below the lobule of ear and 11.5 cms from the mid line, oval in shape. Margins were irregular, inverted with abraded collar present. There was profuse fresh bleeding from the wound and blood clots were present in the wound. The underlying muscles were lacerated………..” 17. As per the testimony of Kishan Singh PW-5, his brother-in-law Jarnail Singh was driving the motor cycle, while he himself was sitting on the pillion seat. They were proceeding towards village Khosa Kotla. In the meantime, a jeep came from behind. The driver of the jeep blew horn. Jarnail Singh took the motor cycle on to the kacha path on the left side. In the meantime, the jeep came almost by the side of the motor cycle. Jugraj Singh was seen sitting in the same and armed with .12 bore gun. A lalkara was raised by Tarlok Singh-accused exhorting Jugraj Singh-accused to teach lesson to Kishan Singh for causing injuries to him and for causing death of Gurjant Singh. The normal reaction of a human being in such a situation where a vehicle coming from behind was in the process of overtaking another besides blowing the horn, would be that he would turn his head/body slightly towards the right side. In that process, he could very well see as to who had come close to him and what proceeded thereafter. It is apparent that Kishan Singh PW -5 could notice the presence of the accused and see the actual firing by Jugraj Singh-accused. In that process, he could very well see as to who had come close to him and what proceeded thereafter. It is apparent that Kishan Singh PW -5 could notice the presence of the accused and see the actual firing by Jugraj Singh-accused. The presence of injury as noticed by the doctor, shows that the same was exactly not on the back side of the body but on the right side. There was, thus, nothing improbable or impossible for Kishan Singh PW to see the occurrence in which he received the fire arm injury on his person. 18. Jarnail Singh was projected as the second eyewitness of the incident. He was related to Kishan Singh PW-5 as his brother-in-law. Said Jarnail Singh was claimed by the prosecution to have been won-over and for that reason he was given up by Additional Public Prosecutor on 19.3.1994. It may be that on account of long standing enmity between Kishan Singh PW and Jugraj Singh-accused, Jarnail Singh avoided coming to the Court to corroborate the version of his brother-in-law. He did not want to be drawn into any litigation between Jugraj Singh and Kishan Singh PW. Even otherwise, the testimony of Kishan Singh PW has a ring of truth. The same is sufficient to establish the prosecution case, especially in regard to the ocular account. There is no legal requirement that someone else has to appear as a witness and depose in the Court to corroborate the version of the injured. 19. The absence of any pellet mark on Jarnail Singh or on the motor cycle does not mean that no such occurrence had taken place. As is clear from the facts, the firing was resorted to from a close distance. Dr Ramesh Sharma PW -4 also found a plastic wad from the wound. In such a situation, there was no chance of either Jarnail Singh being hit by a pellet or any such pellet striking against the motor cycle. 20. The occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1989 at 2 PM. The injured was medico-legally examined on the’same day at 4.00 PM. In such a situation, there was no chance of either Jarnail Singh being hit by a pellet or any such pellet striking against the motor cycle. 20. The occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1989 at 2 PM. The injured was medico-legally examined on the’same day at 4.00 PM. A wireless questi was received by SHO Police Station Sadar, Moga from Police Station City, Moga that the injured was admitted in Civil Hospital, Moga.SHO went to Civil Hospital, Moga and submitted an application Ex.PF to find out whether Kishan Singh was fit to make statement: However, the doctor declared the patient unfit as he was under the effect of sedation. On 7.12.1989, HC Swaran Singh PW-6, who was posted in Police’ Post, Kot Ise Khan received a wireless questi, on which he reached Civil Hospital, Moga. There he learnt that Kishan Singh had been referred to Daya Nand Hospital, Ludhiana. On 8.12.1989 ASI Balbir Singh, Incharge Police Post Kot Ise Khan PW-11, received a wireless questi from ASI Ram Parkash of Police Station Zira from Police Station City, Moga and in pursuance thereof, he reached Ludhiana where he submitted an application Ex.PL, on which Dr Kapil Bhatia PW-12 made an endorsement Ex.PL/1 that the injured was fit to make statement. It was at that time that statement Ex.PG of Kishan Singh PW-5 was recorded on 8.12.1989 at 2.50 PM. The said statement was then sent to Police Station, Dharamkot where formal FIR Ex.PG/2 was registered on the same day at 7.10 PM. Special report was then sent to the Illaqa Magistrate, which was received by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur on 9.12.1989 at 12.30 PM. It being a case under Section 307 IPC, the special report was not required to be sent immediately and as is the normal procedure, it was sent from the Police Station at about 8.00 AM on 9.12.1989 when the roznamcha for the day started. In view of the above, it cannot be said that’ there was any unexplained and inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR. The same has been properly explained. 21. Even if for the sake of argument, it is held that there was a long delay in the lodging of the FIR, that by itself is no ground to discredit the prosecution version. The same has been properly explained. 21. Even if for the sake of argument, it is held that there was a long delay in the lodging of the FIR, that by itself is no ground to discredit the prosecution version. It, at the most, requires the Court to be extra cautious’ in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, especially, the eye witness. 22. As regards the defence plea of Jugraj Singh-appellant, it may be seen that though according to him, he had deposited his licensed single barrel gun along with six live cartridges with Mis Mohal Arms Company, Faridkot on 30.11.1989, but intimation Ex.DB was sent to Sub Divisional Magistrate and S.H.O on 15.12.1989. This long delay in the sending of the intimation indicates that the said evidence was created by Jugraj Singh­ appellant, whereas he remained in possession of his licensed gun and the cartridges all through out. 23. The testimony of Kishan Singh PW -5 is found to be consistent and categoric in so far as the involvement of Jugraj Singh-accused is shown. However, the Court has lurking doubt in its mind about the involvement of Tarlok Singh-accused in the crime. He was mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of Kishan Singh PW -5 to be present in the jeep along with Jugraj Singh. He was not carrying any weapon. The only role attributed to him was of exhorting his co-accused. There is a general tendency to rope in innocent person and while doing so, the role attributed to such an accused is generally of raising of lalkara or given of exhortation. Said Tarlok Singh was found innocent, during investigation of the case. His name was mentioned column No.2 of the challan. Only Jugraj Singh-accused was sought to be tried initially by the prosecution. Tarlok Singh was later-on summoned as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The totality of the circumstances leads the Court to extend benefit of doubt to Tarlok Singh­ accused. However, conviction of Jugraj Singh-accused for the offences under Sections 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act has been established and no fault can be found with the same. 24. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be seen that the occurrence had taken place in the year, 1989. Jugraj Singh-accused faced the agony of trial for more than seven years. 24. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be seen that the occurrence had taken place in the year, 1989. Jugraj Singh-accused faced the agony of trial for more than seven years. He was convicted in the year, 1997 and the present appeal filed by him remained pending in this Court for more than ten years. All this while, the sword of criminal proceedings and conviction remained hanging on his head. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307 IPC imposed upon Jugraj Singh-appellant deserves to be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of Tarlok Singh-appellant under Section 307/34 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. Conviction of Jugraj Singh-appellant under Sections 307 and 27 of the Arms Act is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years imposed upon him under Section 307 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The amount of fine along with its default clause for the said offence is maintained. The sentences of imprisonment and fine along with its default clause under Section 27 of the Arms Act are maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon Jugraj Singh-appellant shall, however, run concurrently. Jugraj Singh is presently on bail. He be taken into custody to serve the sentences imposed upon him. The present appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. ——————————————