JUDGMENT Jora Singh, J.:- Surjit Singh, Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh, filed this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.4.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, arising out of FIR No. 391 dated 28.9.1992, registered under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur. The appellants were convicted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Surjit Singh, was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Surjit Singh, was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 307 IPC, whereas Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each, under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further Surjit Singh, was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and both the substantive sentences awarded to Surjit Singh were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.9.1992, at about 10.30 a.m. Bagga Singh and Surain Singh, residents of village Alike, were putting paddy into the gunny bags. In the meantime, Surjit Singh armed with gun, Dalip Singh armed with Takua, Balvir Singh armed with Barchha residents of village Jhuge Kammake Dakli Kilchake and Om S/o Buta Singh armed with Dang came to the spot. Surjit Singh raised Lalkara to teach a lesson to Bagga Singh for implicating them in a theft case. Surjit Singh fired a shot hitting Bagga Singh. On receipt of fire arm injury he fell down on the ground and raised raula. After that accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. While running Surjit Singh, fired twice hitting the complainant. On hearing raula Kartar Singh (brother of the complainant) and Desa Singh came to the spot. Chandi Singh also came to the spot and after making arrangement of the vehicle, injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where he was medico-legally examined. While running Surjit Singh, fired twice hitting the complainant. On hearing raula Kartar Singh (brother of the complainant) and Desa Singh came to the spot. Chandi Singh also came to the spot and after making arrangement of the vehicle, injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where he was medico-legally examined. The motive to cause injuries was that about one year back Nozzle-plunger of the engine of the complainant was stolen and the complainant suspected that Dalip Singh, real brother of accused Surjit Singh had stolen the Nozzle-plunger. The matter was reported to B.S.F. officials and after enquiry the stolen article was recovered from Dalip Singh. Due to this reason Dalip Singh and other accused were nursing grudge against the complainant and his family members. 3. On receipt of intimation from the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, ASI Buta Singh reached the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and after obtaining opinion from the doctor regarding fitness of injured Bagga Singh, he recorded the statement of the injured as Ex. PG. After making an endorsement Ex. PG/1 on the statement, the same was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. 4. The Investigating Officer, had gone to the spot. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Three empty cartridges of 12 bore SBBL gun were recovered from the spot and the same were made into a sealed parcel. The parcel was sent for analysis from Ballistic Research Laboratory vide recovery memo which was attested by the witnesses. Surjit Singh was arrested and gun was recovered from him alongwith three live cartridges. Gun and the live cartridges were separately sealed and the sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide recovery memo which was attested by the witnesses. Other accused were also arrested in this case and after the completion of investigation challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. 5. Accused Surjit Singh was charge-sheeted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and further Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, whereas accused Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh, were charge-sheeted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. PW-1 Dr. H.L. Garg, had conducted X-ray examination of the injuries on the person of Bagga Singh. PW-2 Dr. 6. PW-1 Dr. H.L. Garg, had conducted X-ray examination of the injuries on the person of Bagga Singh. PW-2 Dr. Surinder Kinra, had medico legally examined injured Bagga Singh and found the following injuries on his person: “1. Lacerated punctured would ½ x ½ cm. on upper part of left side of chest, 4 cm. below mid clavicular line. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 2. Lacerated punctured wound ½ x ½ on neck slightly right side of Supra sternalnotch. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray advised. 3. Lacerated punctured wound ½ x ½ cm. on neck left sternoclavicular junction. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 4. Lacerated punctured wound ½ x ½ cm. on front and upper part of right side of chest. 6 cm. above and medial to right nipple. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 5. Lacerated wound 0.75 x 0.50 cm. on middle inner aspect of right arm. Fresh bleeding was present. 6. Abrasion ½ x ½ cm. on top of right shoulder. 7. Lacerated punctured wound ½ x ½ cm. on left side of forehead near interior hair line. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 8. Lacerated punctured wound ½ x ½ cm. on chin. Fresh bleeding was present. 9. Lacerated punctured wound ½ x ½ cm. on uppermost part of the neck in the wound. Fresh bleeding was present.” 7. PW-3 Head Constable Kewal Krishan, was the recovery witness in whose presence three empties of 12 bore gun were taken into possession from the place of occurrence. SI Balwant Singh, appeared as PW-4. 8. Constable Darshan Singh PW-5 had delivered special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. PW-6 Bagga Singh is the injured/complainant and stated that he alongwith Surain Singh was present at the spot on 28.9.1992 and they were putting paddy into the gunny bags. Accused came fully armed. Surjit Singh, raised Lalkara to teach him a lesson and fired a shot hitting him. Raula was raised by him. Then accused had fled away from the spot. While running accused Surjit Singh had fired twice. PW-7 Surain Singh, had supported the version of Bagga Singh, by saying that in his presence accused came fully armed and Surjit Singh, fired shot hitting Bagga Singh. PW-8 SI Buta Singh, is the Investigating Officer. Raula was raised by him. Then accused had fled away from the spot. While running accused Surjit Singh had fired twice. PW-7 Surain Singh, had supported the version of Bagga Singh, by saying that in his presence accused came fully armed and Surjit Singh, fired shot hitting Bagga Singh. PW-8 SI Buta Singh, is the Investigating Officer. PW-9 Janak Raj, Clerk, in the Tehsil Office, Ferozepur, stated that the Arms Licence was issued in the name of Surjit Singh. Head Constable Kartar Singh- PW 10, had tendered his affidavit Ex.PW 10/A and Constable Sukhjit Singh PW-11, had deposited sealed parcels in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. 9. After close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. In defence they examined Constable Kuldip Singh as DW-1 and Darshan Singh as DW-2. 10. After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of the evidence available on the file the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide order as stated aforesaid. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the file. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that on 28.9.1992, at about 10.30 a.m. when Bagga Singh and Surain Singh were putting paddy into the gunny bags, then the appellants fully armed came. Surjit Singh had raised a Lalkara, then fired a shot hitting Bagga Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh, were also armed but they did not raise Lalkara and no injury was caused by them either to Bagga Singh or Surain Singh. The occurrence took place at 10.30 a.m. The injured was shifted to hospital at 12.50 p.m. and was medico-legally examined at 1.10 p.m. Statement of Bagga Singh was recorded at 3.30 p.m. Special report was delivered to the learned Illaqa Magistrae at 8.00 p.m. Balvir Singh and Dalip Singh, are the real brothers of Surjit Singh. According to the prosecution story, one year earlier complainant party suspected that some parts of their engine were stolen by Dalip Singh. According to the prosecution story, one year earlier complainant party suspected that some parts of their engine were stolen by Dalip Singh. The matter was reported to the BSF authorities and the stolen parts were recovered from Dalip Singh and due to this reason injuries were caused to Bagga Singh. In case Dalip Singh, had the grievance that he was falsely named in the theft case by the complainant then Dalip Singh should have caused injuries to Bagga Singh but no injury has been attributed by Dalip Singh. The appellants had no common intention to commit the crime. Shot was fired by Surjit Singh from a distance of 19/20 karams. Possibility of false implication of Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh cannot be ruled out. Surjit Singh fired a shot but no bony injury was noticed as per the statement of Dr. H.L. Garg PW-1. Surjit Singh remained in custody for about 2 years and 2 months and if the Court is of the opinion that he had committed the crime then a lenient view be taken because the occurrence had taken place on 28.9.1992, at that time Surjit Singh was about 35 years old. After the occurrence no other such act was committed. Parties are from the same village and are residing very peacefully. Appellants, if again, sent to jail, would become hardcore criminal. The appellants are ready to compensate the injured. 13. The learned State counsel argued that on 28.9.1992 Bagga Singh and Surain Singh were present at the spot and were putting paddy into the gunny bags. The appellants fully armed came to the spot and had the common intention to cause injuries. Surjit Singh had fired a shot from a distance of 19/20 karams and on receipt of fire arm injury Bagga Singh fell down and raised raula. After that there was no idea to cause injuries by Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh. 14. Surjit Singh, Balvir Singh and Dalip Singh, are the real brothers. One year earlier to the present occurrence, the complainant party suspected that some parts of their engine were stolen by Dalip Singh and the stolen parts were got recovered by the B.S. F. officials from Dalip Singh. That means Dalip Singh was inimical towards the complainant party. 14. Surjit Singh, Balvir Singh and Dalip Singh, are the real brothers. One year earlier to the present occurrence, the complainant party suspected that some parts of their engine were stolen by Dalip Singh and the stolen parts were got recovered by the B.S. F. officials from Dalip Singh. That means Dalip Singh was inimical towards the complainant party. Copy of the FIR or recovery memo not on the file to show that Bagga Singh had reported the matter to the B.S.F. authorities and they had effected the recovery of stolen parts of the engine from Dalip Singh. If the allegation of Bagga Singh was correct one then Dalip Singh armed with Takua was the main accused. In case the appellants came together fully armed with intention to cause injuries to Bagga Singh then Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh, should have also caused injuries to Bagga Singh. There was no idea to remain silent. Lalkara was raised by Surjit Singh to teach a lesson to the complainant party but after the lalkara was raised by Surjit Singh, no action was taken by Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh. Bagga Singh and Surain Singh, appeared in the Court. They have stated that the appellants armed with different weapons came to the spot. Then Surjit Singh raised lalkara to teach a lesson to Bagga Singh, then fired a shot hitting Bagga Singh. Not a word was stated by Bagga Singh and Surain Singh as to whether Dalip Singh had raised lalkara and fired a shot. After lalkara by Surjit Singh, Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh, did not cause any injury either to Bagga Singh or Surain Singh. The occurrence had taken place on 28.9.1992 at 10.30 a.m. Bagga Singh injured was shifted to hospital at about 12.50 p.m. and was medico-legally examined at 1.10 p.m. After the intimation of admission of Bagga Singh was sent to the concerned Police Staion, then the Investigating Officer had gone to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and recorded the statement of Bagga Singh at 3.30 p.m. After recording the statement of Bagga Singh, the same was sent to the police station for registration of FIR whereas the special report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 8.00 p.m. when the residence of the Illaqa Magistrate was at a distance of only 200 yards from the police station. Possibility of falsely naming the appellants except Surjit Singh after consultation cannot be ruled out. Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh were named in because they are related to the main accused Surjit Singh. They had not raised Lalkara nor caused any injury either to Bagga Singh or Surain Singh. If they were not to cause any injury or instigate the co-accused to commit the crime then there was no idea to accompany Surjit Singh particularly when they were fully armed. Presence of Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh at the spot at the time of occurrence is doubtful. In fact they were named in the FIR being related to the main accused Surjit Singh. Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh are acquitted from the charges framed against them. 15. Surjit Singh, was armed with 12 bore SBBL gun and after raising Lalkara, had fired a shot hitting Bagga Singh. As per Dr. H.L. Garg-PW 1, no bony injury was noticed on the person of Bagga Singh. PW-2 Dr. Surinder Kinra, at the time of medico-legally examination of Bagga Singh noticed 9 injuries. Injuries No.1 to 4 were found to be dangerous to life. Fire arm injury was on the vital part of the body and Surjit Singh had caused this injury with an intention to murder. 16. As discussed earlier no bony injury was noticed but the injury was on the vital part of the body and caused with a fire arm weapon then offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The appellants were inimical towards the complainant party, due to allegation of theft. Surjit Singh, appellant fully armed came to the spot and after raising lalkara fired a shot hitting in the chest of Bagga Singh, while standing at a distance of 19/20 karams. The trial Court rightly opined that Surjit Singh is liable for punishment for committing an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. The occurrence is dated 28.9.1992 and at that time Surjit Singh was 35 years old. After the occurrence Surjit Singh had not committed any such offence. He is the first offender. The appellants and the complainant party are from the same village and they are residing peacefully. Surjit Singh has already undergone about 2 years and 2 months out of the actual sentence. After the occurrence Surjit Singh had not committed any such offence. He is the first offender. The appellants and the complainant party are from the same village and they are residing peacefully. Surjit Singh has already undergone about 2 years and 2 months out of the actual sentence. Surjit Singh faced the agony of trial for the last 18 years. He is to become hardcore criminal if he is sent back to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. The ends of justice would be fully met in case a lenient view is taken. 18. In 1992 Crl. L.J 2392 “Rabi Behera Vs. State”, conviction was under Sections 307/458 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused stabbing the person by penetrating knife into plural cavity on the left side, with knowledge that it would cause death and accused was 22 years of age and has long distance to cover in life. Held that a chance should be given to have repentance in life and conduct himself as good citizen in future. Sentence was RI for 6 years and was reduced. 19. In view of the above, Surjit Singh is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (2 years and 2 months) and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- more as fine payable to the injured as compensation. Rs.20,000/- be deposited within two months with the trial Court. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal qua Balvir Singh, Dalip Singh and Om Singh appellants is accepted but appeal qua Surjit Singh-appellant is rejected with modification on the point of sentence of imprisonment and fine as stated above. ---------------