Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Ram Saranjit Singh alias Pali and Jagtar Singh alias Mukha. They are aggrieved against the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced. 2. Appellant Ram Saranjit Singh was sentenced under Section 307 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fouryears and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for causing injury to Hardev Singh. He was further sentenced under Section 307 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 500/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for causing injury to Angrez Singh. 3. Whereas for these two offences, appel lant Jagtar Singh was sentenced with the aid of Section 34 IPC on both counts to undergo rigorous imprisonment or two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 4. Ram Saranjit Singh has been also convicted and sentenced under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for using the gun of Bhagat Singh for unlawful purpose. 5. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 10.10.1994 at 8.00 P.M. In the occurrence Angrez Singh and Hardev Singh were injured. They were admitted at Civil Hospital, Maur. On an information received through Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Maur, Piara Singh, Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station Maur, reached the hospital and on the opinion given by the doctor that injured were not fit to give the statement, no statement of injured was recorded. However, on 11.10.1994 vide Ex.PH, Medical Officer opined at 12.30 A.M. that Hardev Singh is fit to make statement, statement of Hardev Singh, injured was recorded in the hospital who having read the same, appended his signatures in token of correctness. The statement has been exhibited as Ex.PW. 2/A. On endorsement Ex.PW. 2/B given by Piara Singh, Inspector, formal FIR Ex.PW.2/C was recorded and registered. 8. The statement has been exhibited as Ex.PW. 2/A. On endorsement Ex.PW. 2/B given by Piara Singh, Inspector, formal FIR Ex.PW.2/C was recorded and registered. 8. It is stated in the FIR that Ram Saranjit Singh was having a suspicion that both Hardev Singh, complainant and Angrez Singh were defaming Ram Saranjit Singh by alleging that he is having illicit intimacy with the wife of Mishra Singh son of Joginder Singh. As per prosecution case, five/six days prior to the occurrence while Hardev Singh and Angrez Singh were working in the field, accused Ram Saranjit Singh questioned them on this score and had also left the threat. On 10.10.1994 when both Hardev Singh and Angrez Singh were returning to the village after attending the fair, they met Darshan Singh son of Nidhan Singh, and Baldev Singh son of Ram Chand near Panchayat Ghar and started talking with them. At that time, it was 8.00 P.M. Accused Ram Saranjit Singh armed with 12 bore double barrel gun along with co-accused Jagtar Singh reached at the spot. Jagtar Singh accused had raised a lalkara that accused Ram Saranjit Singh alias (Pali) should teach a lesson for defaming him in public. Hardev Singh and Angrez Singh made an attempt to escape towards their house, then Ram Saranjit Singh fired a shot from his gun, due to which Flardev Singh and Angrez Singh received fire arm injuries. The accused after firing the shot decamped from the spot. 9. The FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Accused along with report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) were committed and they were charged for the offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. Dr. Raj Kumar Garg appeared as PW. 1, and proved the injuries suffered by Hardev Singh and Angrez Singh, injured. 11. Hardev Singh, injured-complainant, appeared as PW.2 and Angrez Singh, injured, appeared as PW.3. 12. Besides them, Hardial Singh appeared as PW.4, Lal Singh appeared as PW.5, Piara Singh, Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.6, and Narotam Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.7 and thereafter the prosecution concluded its evidence. 13. After the prosecution evidence concluded, incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 14. Ram Saranjit Singh stated that on earlier occasion, he had an altercation with the injured, which was the cause of falsely implicating him. 13. After the prosecution evidence concluded, incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 14. Ram Saranjit Singh stated that on earlier occasion, he had an altercation with the injured, which was the cause of falsely implicating him. In fact, the injured received injuries at the fair when they had committed eve teasing at the fair. 15. Jagtar Singh has stated that he was falsely implicated being a sympathizer of Ram Saranjit Singh. 16. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate, appearing for the appellants has stated that in the present case, there was no motive on the part of accused/appellants to cause injuries and no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of injured witness who being interested and inimical, had deposed against the appellants. It was further stated that shot was fired from the distance, therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC has been made out rather case will fall under Section 324 IPC. 17. On the observation made by the Court that injured persons received gun shot injuries, and will be the last persons to falsely implicate the appellants, Mr. Mann has confined his prayerto reduction in sentence awarded to the accused-appellants. 18. It has been submitted that in the present case occurrence had taken place in the year 1994. About 15 years are going to elapse and, therefore, protracted trial be taken as mitigating circumstance and sentence awarded upon the appellants be reduced to already undergone. It is stated that the appellants have committed no offence before the occurrence or after their conviction. They are leading the life of peaceful and honest citizen and, therefore, they should not be sent behind the bars. 19. This Court has to weigh both mitigating and aggravating circumstances while determining the quantum of sentence. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that in the present case fire arm was used and two persons were injured. However, equally this Court is conscious of the fact that the occurrence had taken place fifteen years ago and the appellants have suffered protracted trial. 20. Therefore, taking into consideration submissions made by counsel for the appellants, sentence awarded upon appellant Ram Saranjit Singh under Section 307 IPC, on both counts and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, is reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment and sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 10,000/-on all counts. 21. 20. Therefore, taking into consideration submissions made by counsel for the appellants, sentence awarded upon appellant Ram Saranjit Singh under Section 307 IPC, on both counts and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, is reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment and sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 10,000/-on all counts. 21. Similarly, sentence awarded upon appellant Jagtar Singh is reduced from two years to one year and sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- on all counts. 22. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the amount shall be disbursed to the injured. In case fine is not deposited, the benefit in reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the appellants. 23. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed off.