JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann. J.:-The appellant along with his mother Mohinder Kaur was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for offences under Sections 307/353/34 IPC. Vide judgment dated November 28, 1994, learned trial Court acquitted Mohinder Kaur of the charges against her by giving benefit of doubt. The appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- on two counts. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months on each count. He was also convicted under Section 353 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, revenue officials had come to village, Pandori for demarcating the land of Jaspal Singh PW -6 on 22.5.1992. At about 12.30 PM when the demarcation was going on, both the accused came there in a Maruti van. Kuldip Singh accused, was armed with a double barrel .12 bore gun. Mohinder Kaur accused raised lalkara exhorting her son Kuldip Singh to fire and not to spare any person who had collected at the spot in connection with the demarcation of the land. Kuldip Singh-accused fired four/five shots. Pritam Singh-Kanungo and other revenue officials ran for safety. Some of the pellets struck Inderjit Singh, PW-3 and Jasbir Singh PW-4. On account of the said, occurrence, the revenue officials could not discharge their duty of demarcating the land. 3. Pritam Singh Kanungo PW-2 rushed to Police Station, Ramdas and made an application Ex. PD, regarding the occurrence on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered. 4. Both the injured were taken to the hospital, where they were medico-legally examined by Dr Narvail Singh PW -1. 3. Pritam Singh Kanungo PW-2 rushed to Police Station, Ramdas and made an application Ex. PD, regarding the occurrence on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered. 4. Both the injured were taken to the hospital, where they were medico-legally examined by Dr Narvail Singh PW -1. Inderjit Singh-injured was examined on the same day at 4.00 PM and the following injury was found on his person: “A round swelling 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in which bullet (sharra) one was present in the anterior surface of right hand which was 6 cm from the base of the right thumb.” Jasbir Singh-injured was examined at 4.30 PM and the following injury was found on his person: “A round swelling 1 cm x 1 cm into 1 cm present on the posterior surface of the right thigh in which two bullets were present.” The injuries of both the injured were found to have been caused by a firearm. The investigation was then initiated by SI Gopal Singh, who visited the spot and prepared rough site plan of the place of the occurrence. Two empties Ex. PI and Ex. P-2 were recovered from the spot vide memo “Ex.PW7/A. Application Ex.PC made by Jaspal Singh for demarcation of his land was produced by Pritam Singh, Kanungo and taken into possession by the police. On 24.5.1992, Kuldip Singh-accused was arrested in the area of Village, Ramdas, when he was driving the van. A double bariel gun Ex.P-3 which was loaded with two live cartridges was lying in the van. Two more live cartridges were recovered from the right side pocket -of the shirt worn by the accused. The gun along with the live cartridges and the van was taken into possession vide various recovery memos. Mohinder Kaur­ accused was also formally arrested in the case. 6. After conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented by the police against both the accused. 7. After framing of the charges, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the prosecution examined Dr Narvail Singh PW-1, Pritam Singh Kanungo PW-2, Complainant Inderjit singh injured PW-3, Jasbir Singh-injured PW-4, Shahbeg Singh Patwari PW-5, Jaspal Singh PW-6, HC Santokh Singh PW-7, ASI Amarjit Singh PW-8, SI Gopal Singh PW­ 9 and Kharaiti Lal, Halqa Patwari PW-10. 8. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the, same was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both of them denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. They placed on record judgment orders Ex. D-I to D-4. The trial Court believed the prosecution version regarding firing of shots by Kuldip Singh-accused and in the process, obstructing the discharge of official duty by the revenue officials. However, Mohinder Kaur-accused was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges against her. Hence, the present appeal by Kuldip Singh- accused against his conviction and sentence. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with the assistance rendered by them. 10. The main thrust of the defence is that there was no occasion for the revenue officials to come to the spot to demarcate, the land of the complainant. The application Ex, PC was made as far back as on 3.9.1991 and the revenue officials allegedly visited the spot on 22..5.1992. It is not in dispute that the visit of the revenue officials to the spot was after eight months of the making of the application Ex.PC. The mere fact of the visit of the revenue officials after a long delay is no ground to hold that the revenue officials had not come to the village, to demarcate the land of Jaspal Singh PW-6. It may be that the revenue officials were busy with other pre-occupations. In case Jaspal Singh PW -6 did not remember the exact time when the application for demarcation was made, that would not make the prosecution version doubtful. The injuries found on the persons of Inderjit Singh PW-3 and Jasbir Singh PW-4 were opined by the doctor to have been caused by a firearm. So much so that even from underneath the injuries found on the person of the injured two pellets were found present. 11. Soon after the occurrence, it was Pritam Singh Kanungo PW-2, who had come to the spot to give demarcation, rushed to Police Station, Ramdas and made an application Ex.PD, on the basis of which formal FIR a was registered. The occurrence had taken place at 12.30 PM. Formal FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered at Police Station at 2.02 PM. The recording of FIR was concluded at 2.35 PM. The occurrence had taken place at 12.30 PM. Formal FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered at Police Station at 2.02 PM. The recording of FIR was concluded at 2.35 PM. Special report was received by Judicial/Magistrate 1st Class, Ajnala at 4.05 PM on the same day. The lodging of the, FIR with due promptness lends independent corroboration to, the case of the prosecution. Pritam Singh Kanungo, who had lodged the FIR appeared as PW -2, while Shahbeg Singh, Halqa Patwari appeared as PW-5. Both of them have stated in un-equivocal terms that the accused obstructed the discharge of their official duties of giving demarcation of the land by coming to the spot and firing upon the revenue officials and, others present there. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 307/353 IPC. “The same is, accordingly, affirmed. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be noticed that the occurrence had taken place on 22.5.1992. The appellant was arrested on of 24.5.1992 and granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 20.8.1992. He was again taken into custody on 28.11,1994 upon his conviction and sentence by the’ trial Court. He filed the present appeal, in which he was extended the concession of bail vide order dated 4.1.1995. Thus, the appellant has served an actual period of more than four months in custody. Because of the firing resorted to by the appellant Inderjit Singh PW-3 received injury on his .right hand, while Jasbir Singh PW-4 received injury on the posterior surface of his right thigh. No vital part of any of the two injured was hit on account of the act of firing. It may be that some stray pellets hit the two injured. The appellant was noted to be 24 years of age when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 22.2.1994, He had been facing the agony of the criminal prosecution since May, 1992. About 15 years have elapsed since then. Under these circumstance no useful purpose’ would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars so as to serve the un-expired portion of his sentence. Simultaneously, the fine imposed upon him can be adequately enhanced so as to provide suitable compensation to the two injured. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307I353 IPC is maintained. Under these circumstance no useful purpose’ would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars so as to serve the un-expired portion of his sentence. Simultaneously, the fine imposed upon him can be adequately enhanced so as to provide suitable compensation to the two injured. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307I353 IPC is maintained. However, his substantive sentences of, imprisonment are reduced to the one already undergone by him. The fine of, Rs.2000/- in all imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-, which shall be paid by him within three months from the date a certificate copy of the present judgment is prepared by is Court. In default of payment of the amount of fine as enhanced, the ,appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, On realization of the fine, the same shall be paid to Inderjit Singh PW-3 and Jasbir Singh PW-4 in equal shares. Except for modification in the sentence, as indicated above, the present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ————————————