JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J. - Accused-appellant Harmesh Lal (hereinafter referred to as appellant) and Dalbir Singh (since acquitted in the case) were tried for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Consequently, vide judgment dated 14.10.1995, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Harmesh Lal-appellant was convicted for the aforesaid offences and was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 3 months under Section 307 of the Code and RI for 3 years under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts as unfolded by Piara Singh-complainant, in his statement Ex. PA, are that on 12.11.1989 at 7 p.m., he was standing in the street in front of his house situated at village Muthadda Kalan, while his son Nirmal Singh (injured) and PW Amarjit Singh were sitting at a distance of about 20 yards from his house. In the meantime, Head Constable Dalbir Singh and Special Police Officer Harmesh Lal (appellant), who were posted at Police Post Muthadda Kalan, came there and asked Nirmal Singh and Amarjit Singh to go back to their respective houses, but Nirmal Singh (injured) told both the accused that they were sitting quite near their house. Thereupon, an altercation ensued, in which Harmesh Lal fired a shot from his .12 bore double barrel gun at the instigation of HC Dalbir Singh on the back of Nirmal Singh. Consequently, Nirmal Singh fell down and the accused managed to flee. Injured Nirmal Singh was shifted to Civil Hospital, Phillaur. 3. On the receipt of letter Ex. PW-4/1 (also exhibited as Ex. PJ) from Civil Hospital, Phillaur, Assistant Sub-Inspector Skattar Singh (PW-7) reached the hospital and enquired about the fitness of the injured Nirmal Singh to make a statement, but the doctor vide endorsements dated 11.11.1999 (Ex. PG/1) and dated 13.11.1999 (Ex. PG/2) declared Nirmal Singh unfit to make any statement. Consequently, upon the statement of Piara Singh Ex. PA, the formal First Information Report Ex. PA/3 was registered against both the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 4. PG/1) and dated 13.11.1999 (Ex. PG/2) declared Nirmal Singh unfit to make any statement. Consequently, upon the statement of Piara Singh Ex. PA, the formal First Information Report Ex. PA/3 was registered against both the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 4. Assistant Sub-Inspector Skattar Singh (PW-7) handled the investigation. He visited the place of occurrence, lifted some blood-stained earth and took the same into possession vide memo Ex. P/8. He also prepared visual site plan Ex. PH. On 13.11.1999, he arrested the accused Harmesh Lal and recovered one DBBL gun (Ex. P-1) along with 18 live cartridges (Ex. P/2 to P/19). He also prepared rough sketch Ex. PE/1 of the gun Ex. P/1 and sealed the gun along with the live cartridges in separate parcels and took the same into possession vide memo Ex. PE. On 14.11.1989, he took into possession the blood-stained clothes of Nirmal Singh vide memo Ex. PD. Ultimately, he recorded the statement of Nirmal Singh on 17.11.1999 when he was declared fit by the doctor vide opinion Ex. PN/1. 5. During investigation, the police declared HC Dalbir Singh-accused as innocent and challaned Harmesh Lal-appellant. However, during trial, accused HC Dalbir Singh was also summoned to face trial. 6. Both the accused were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code. Harmesh Lal-appellant was also charged under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 7. In order to seek conviction against the accused, the prosecution examined Piara Singh-complainant (PW-1), Nirmal Singh-injured (PW-2) HC Santokh Singh (PW-3), Amarjit Singh (PW-4), HC Surinder Kumar (PW-5), Hukam Chand Pharmacist, Civil Hospital, Phillaur (PW-6), Assistant Sub-Inspector Skattar Singh Instigating Officer (PW-7), Kanwaljit Singh Superintendent of Police (PW-8). Dr. Subash Radhia of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana who had medico-legally examined Nirmal Singh injured, had left the service of the said Hospital and, thus, Mr. Lawrence, record-keeper of the said Hospital was examined as PW-9, who placed on record the injury report and the discharge certificate, Ex. PQ and Ex. PQ/1, respectively. 8. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them during evidence and pleaded their false implication in this case. Lawrence, record-keeper of the said Hospital was examined as PW-9, who placed on record the injury report and the discharge certificate, Ex. PQ and Ex. PQ/1, respectively. 8. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them during evidence and pleaded their false implication in this case. Harmesh Lal further explained that at the relevant time, he was posted as SPO (Special Police Officer) in Police Post Muthadda Kalan on the relevant date i.e. 12.11.1989. On that evening, he was on duty and during the course of his duty, he went towards the liquor vend and found Nirmal Singh (injured), Amarjit Singh, Lalu and Gurmej Singh taking liquor in the open in front of the liquor vend. Thereupon, he asked Nirmal Singh and others to go back to their houses, but Nirmal Singh grappled with him and tried to snatch his gun. Lalu, Darshan Singh and Amarjit Singh interfered and desisted Nirmal Singh from snatching the gun. During the said scuffle, the gun accidentally went off. Resultantly, Nirmal Singh suffered injury. It was further pleaded by Harmesh Lal (appellant) that there were instructions to the police officials to refrain the people from moving in the streets in the evening, due to the terrorist activities in the State and, therefore, his act of preventing Nirmal Singh and others from taking liquor in the open amounted to an act in discharge of his official duties. The appellant also denied the allegation of instigation by HC Dalbir Singh (co-accused, who has been acquitted) to attack the injured. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Rajesh Kumar, who proved the character roll of accused HC Dalbir Singh, while DW-2 HC Harpal Singh deposed from the service record of HC Dalbir Singh that he originally joined as Constable in 1965 and in November, 1989 he was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Phillaur. 9. On security, the trial Court acquitted the accused HC Dalbir Singh from the charges framed against him and convicted Harmesh Lal (appellant) and sentenced him accordingly. Hence, this appeal. 10. Having gone through the records of the case, no such material has come to my notice, which may render the judgment of conviction as perverse or having been passed without application of mind. The testimony of injured eye-witness Nirmal Singh stands corroborated by PW-4 Amarjit Singh. Hence, this appeal. 10. Having gone through the records of the case, no such material has come to my notice, which may render the judgment of conviction as perverse or having been passed without application of mind. The testimony of injured eye-witness Nirmal Singh stands corroborated by PW-4 Amarjit Singh. Harmesh Lal-appellant has not disputed the fire from his gun and the injury suffered by Nirmal Singh. He set up the defence of accidental fire. It is established that the injuries on the person of Nirmal Singh are on the back portion of his body. Had the injuries been on the front side of Nirmal Singh, then it could be gathered that he received injuries only when he tried to snatch the gun. 11. In the grounds of appeal, it is contended that since the doctor, who had medico-legally examined Nirmal Singh-injured, was not examined, therefore, in the absence of the evidence of said expert and in the absence of the reasoning as to how he reached the conclusion that the injures were dangerous to life, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 307 of the Code. This contention, on thoughtful consideration, appears to have some substance. 12. As admitted by PW-9 Mr. Lawrence that the injured was medico-legally examined by Dr. Subash Radhia, Registrar, Department of Surgery, CMC Ludhiana. Dr. Subash Radhia has not been examined. Even no Medical Officer well conversant with the medical science has been examined to prove the nature of injuries. Mr. Lawrence, Record-keeper, CMC Ludhiana being merely of status of a clerk, could not disclose as to on what basis the injuries were declared as dangerous to life by Dr. Subash Radhia. Perusal of injury report Ex. PQ shows that it does not contain any reason for declaring injury Nos. 1 and 2 on the person of Nirmal Singh as dangerous to life. According to injury report Ex. PQ, the injured was admitted in the hospital on 12.11.1989 and discharged on 23.11.1989. The doctor, in his report, had nowhere stated, if the condition of the injured ever deteriorated during the period of his treatment. 1 and 2 on the person of Nirmal Singh as dangerous to life. According to injury report Ex. PQ, the injured was admitted in the hospital on 12.11.1989 and discharged on 23.11.1989. The doctor, in his report, had nowhere stated, if the condition of the injured ever deteriorated during the period of his treatment. Thus, I am of the view that in the absence of the evidence of the doctor, who on examination had declared the injuries on the person of Nirmal Singh as dangerous to life and also in the absence of any reasons for declaring the injuries as such, it cannot be held that the injuries on the person of Nirmal Singh were dangerous to life. Thus, the conviction of the appellant Harmesh Lal under Section 307 of the Code, cannot be sustained. While holding so, I find support from the decision of the Delhi High Court in case Rajesh @ Vimal Kumar and another v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1995(2) RCR(Crl.) 140 (Delhi) wherein, it was observed as under :- ".......... The prosecution suffers from the same malady in the present appeal too. Though, it placed on the record the medico-legal report, it never thought of examining the Doctor who had opined that the injuries were dangerous in nature. Since that particular opinion has not been proved through the doctor who gave it and since we do not know on what basis he formed that opinion, and keeping also in view the medico-legal report placed on the record, I do feel that in the present case the conviction shall have to be only under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code. The appeal with regard to conviction is accepted to that extent." Similarly, in another case Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman v. State of Delhi, 1995(1) RCR(Crl.) 529 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court once again, held as under :- ".... The Doctor who declared the injuries to be grievous has not been examined and thus we do not have on record the material to indicate as to what were the reasons for the Doctor coming to the conclusion that the injuries were grievous in nature. The M.L.C. does not indicate that there was any fracture nor there is any such claim by Kanhaiya Lal injured. The M.L.C. does not indicate that there was any fracture nor there is any such claim by Kanhaiya Lal injured. In these circumstances I am clearly of the view that the injuries have to be termed as simple caused by sharp object and in this way offence would fall under Section 324. In case Ganga Ram v. State, 1968 Crl.L.J. (Vol. 74) (sic) it has been held that even if the Doctor is examined but the record of the operation, etc. is not produced and it is not clear from his statement as to how he came to the conclusion about the injury to be grievous it should be deemed to be "simple" in nature. In case Om Parkash Daulat Ram v. State, 1969 Crl.L.J. (Vol. 75) 250, it has been held that if the reasons on which the injuries are declared as grievous are not given in court, the same are to be treated as simple. In these circumstances, the offence proved against the appellant would be under Section 324 Indian Penal Code only." 13. In the case in hand too, the doctor, who had examined the injured Nirmal Singh has not been examined, therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty under Section 307 of the Code. Resultantly, the offence, if any committed by him, falls within the purview of Section 324 of the Code. Sufficient evidence has been led to prove the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act against the appellant. 14. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the accused had been facing the agony of criminal trial for about 5 years and, thereafter, adjudication of his appeal remained pending for the last about 10 years and the fact that he has already undergone the sentence of 2 months and 20 days, impel me to take a lenient view. Consequently, I partly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 307 of the Code and convict him under Section 324 of the Code and sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him. Appeal partly allowed.