Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants in which it has been stated that appellant no.2 Kesho Kumar Singh has died during the pendency of this appeal no. (sic ?) 15.7.2007. 2. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal appeal against appellant no.2 Kesho Kumar Singh stands abated. 3. Appellant no.1 Jagdish Singh and appellant no.2 Surya Bansh Singh have been convicted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years each. They were further convicted under Sec. 452 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each. They were also convicted under Sec.27 of the Arms Act & were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case as disclosed from the fardbeyan of the informant Prabhawati Devi is that on 25th of December, 1985 she was busy with her house hold affairs at 7 o clock in the morning. In the meantime, the accused persons, namely, Jagdish Singh (brother-in-law of the informant) and Surya Bansh Singh having armed with countrymade pistols entered into her house and they told the informant that the said house was in their possession and ordered to get out from her house. When she protested and told that she was the owner of the house, the appellant Kesho Kumar Singh dragged her outside of the house and accused Suryabansh Singh ordered to kill her. Thereupon the accused Jagdish Singh opened fire which hit her face. She fled away towards interior part of the house. It has been stated that he also fired upon a she-buffalo. On hulla witnesses Sitaram Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh, Shiva Muni Singh and Jagdish Sharma along with some other villagers came on the place of occurrence. Having seen them the accused persons fled away. The cause of occurrence was on account of partition of the house. Thereafter the informant Prabhawati Devi went to the Police Station where here fardbeyan was recorded. On the basis of her fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was registered. After completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. Thereafter the informant Prabhawati Devi went to the Police Station where here fardbeyan was recorded. On the basis of her fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was registered. After completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. The appellants have pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 8 witnesses. 7. P.W. 1 is Sita Ram Singh. P.W.2 is Jang Bahadur Singh. P.W. 3 is Shiva Muni Singh. P.W. 4 is Jagdish Sharma. P.W. 5 is Dr. Gopi Nath Singh. P.W. 6 is Prabhawati Devi, the informant of this case. P.W. 7 is Kumar Narendra Singh, a Veterinary Doctor and P.W.8 is Banarsi Rai, the I.O. of this case. 8. P.W.6 Prabhawati Devi, the informant of this case has fully supported the case of prosecution. According to her while she was in her house appellants Jagdish Singh, Kesho Singh (since dead) armed with gun and Suryabansh Singh armed with pistol came there. Jagdish Singh told her to get out from the house as it did not belong to her. Accused Kesho Singh dragged her and Suryabansh Singh abused her and provoked to kill her. It has further been stated that Jagdish Singh fired from his gun which hit on her face. He also fired second time which hit her she-buffalo. On hulla witnesses, namely, Jang Bahadur Singh, Shiva Muni Singh, Sita Ram Singh came there. Having seen them the accused persons fled away. She has stated that they wanted to take her properties and for that reason they had assaulted her. 9. The other witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 have also supported the version of the informant P.W.6. 10. P.W.3 Shiva Muni Singh though declared hostile has also supported the case of prosecution and has stated that he saw the appellants armed with gun and pistol and also dragging the informant. According to him, the accused Jagdish Singh opened two firing, first hit the face of the informant and second firing hit her she-buffalo. 11. P.W. 5 Dr. Gopi Nath Singh has stated that he examined Prabhawati Devi, the injured informant. According to him, the accused Jagdish Singh opened two firing, first hit the face of the informant and second firing hit her she-buffalo. 11. P.W. 5 Dr. Gopi Nath Singh has stated that he examined Prabhawati Devi, the injured informant. He examined the informant Prabhawai Devi on 25.12.1985 at 11 A.M. and found the following injuries on her person: (i) Multiple gun shot pillet wounds of about 2 to 3 m.m. diameters, superficial and deep upto about 2-3 m.m scattered over the whole of the right side of the face. Margins were lightly charred. (ii) One lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/ 4" x 1/4" deep on the left side of the forehead above the left eye-brow. (iii) Irregular abrasion 1/8" x 1/4" on the left cheek. 12. According to the opinion of the doctor injury no.1 was caused by gun shot pillets from a fire arm such as gun and the other injuries by hard and blunt substance. All the injuries were simple in nature. 13. P.W. 7 is Kumar Narendra Singh a Veterinary doctor. He has also found multiple pillet injuries on the left thigh of the cattle and also on the left side of her upper jaw. The injury report prepared by him is Ext. 1/1. 14. P.W.8 Banarsi Rai is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that he investigated the case. According to him, he was A.S.I, at Kargahar Police Station on the date of occurrence. He has stated that he visited the State Dispensary, Kargahar in the noon on the day of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant which was read over to her and she signed on the same. On the basis of fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was drawn, thereafter he inspected the place of occurrence and he gave vivid description of the same. He also collected the injury reports of the informant as well as the she-buffalo. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completion of investigation he submitted chargesheet against the accused parsons. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the P.Ws. arrived after the accused persons had fled away, as such, they could not see the occurrence. P.W. 1 in para 11 of his statement has stated that when the accused persons fled away P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 came there. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the P.Ws. arrived after the accused persons had fled away, as such, they could not see the occurrence. P.W. 1 in para 11 of his statement has stated that when the accused persons fled away P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 came there. P.W.1 has itself stated that at the time of occurrence he was in BAGICHA so he could not see the occurrence. The case is based on only solitary evidence of P.W. 6 the informant. On the point of occurrence there are contradictions in the deposition of the informant P.W. 6, as such her evidence suffers from many infirmities. 16. The submission of learned counsel that the witnesses have not seen the appellants assaulting the informant but it is apparent that they saw the injuries on the face of the informant as well as her she-buffalo. P.W 3 who has been declared hostile has stated that he saw the appellants in ANGAN and subsequently stated that the informant was dragged and thereafter the accused persons fired on her, as such, there is corroborating and supporting evidence on the factum of occurrence as stated by the informant. Though, it is submitted that this is a case of solitary evidence of the injured informant and her testimony should not be relied upon as there are some ambiguity in her evidence, but from evidence it appears that she has consistently stated and narrated about the occurrence. P.W.1 has stated that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing nulla and when he reached there he saw the appellants coming out from the house. He has also stated that one of the appellants was dragging the informant. Even if her evidence is to be taken as an exaggerated version and if disbelieved even then there is other corroborative evidence. The testimony of the informant and the evidence of the doctor who examined the injured informant, are enough to prove the case. 17. I have carefully gone through the judgment under appeal from which it would appear that the learned court below has properly taken into consideration the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the appellants have been proved. I do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants and it is, accordingly, upheld. 18. I do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants and it is, accordingly, upheld. 18. Coming to the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place 22 years back and the appellants have been sufficiently harassed and punished during the prolong litigation. The case is based on solitary evidence of the informant, as such, some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the appellants. 19. Considering the submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of R.I. of 7 years is reduced to that of R.I. for 4 years. However, the sentence awarded under Sections 452 and 27 of the Arms Act are maintained. 20. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.