JUDGMENT Mehtab S.Gill, J.:- This is an appeal filed by Chhota Singh and Baldev Singh appellants against the judgment dated 5.5.1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby he convicted them under Sections 307/324/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo various terms of sentences. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.4.1993 at about 11.30 a.m. Nirbhai Singh, Balwinder Singh son of Gagar Singh, Harjinder Singh son of Mohinder Singh, Chota Singh son of Veer Singh and Baldev Singh son of Chhota Singh were standing near the Court of S.D.M., Jhunir, in connection with their cases pending in the said Court. Baldev Singh son of Chhota Singh armed with .12 bore DBBL gun belonging to his father and Chhota Singh armed with a Kirpan came there. Baldev Singh fired a shot from the .12 bore DBBL gun towards Nirbhai Singh which hit his right leg. Chhota Singh gave two Kirpan blows which hit on the back side of Nirbhai Singh. Nirbhai Singh fell down on the ground and raised an alarm, due to which the accused party fled away with their respective weapons. Nirbhai Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Mansa by Baljinder Singh son of Gagar Singh in a vehicle and got him admitted there. 3. The motive for the commission of the offence was that about 1-1/2 years prior to the present occurrence, Baljit Singh son of Chhota Singh and brother of Baldev Singh was murdered. F.I.R. Ex.PA/2 was registerd against the appellants on the basis of the statement Ex.PA. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Nirbhai Singh PW-1, Baljinder Singh PW-2, Dr.R.K.Garg PW-3, Dr.Ram Singh Jaura PW-4, ASI Surjit Singh PW-5. 5. In defence, Gurnam Singh DW-2, Harbans Singh DW-2, Dr.Sarwan Singh Ratta DW-3 and Pawan Kumar DW-4 were examined. 6. Dr.R.K.Garg PW-3 medico-legally examined Nirbhai Singh on 30.4.1993 at 12.20 p.m. and he found the following injuries on his person :- (1) About 40 oval lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 9.25 cm x 0.5cm and two lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm on the anterior aspect of right leg and right knee joint margin of the wounds were inverted bleeding was present. Advised X-ray and there were corresponding tears in the chadra which was blood-stained. Advised X-ray and there were corresponding tears in the chadra which was blood-stained. The wounds were having coller of abrasion and injury kept under observation. (2) About 8 oval lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm to 0.25cm x 0.25 cm on the posterior aspect of right leg in its lateral half margins of the wounds were everted. Bleeding was present. Advised X-ray and was kept under observations. (3) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm on the posterior aspect of right side on the scapular region 3 cm lateral to middle obliquely placed bleeding was present. There was corresponding cut present in the shirt. (4) Linear abrasion 6 cm along in the small line of injury Nos.3 and 4 cm. below injury No.3 and there was corresponding tear present in the shirt and Chadra. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the relevant record with their assistance. 8. From the statements of eye-witnesses Nirbhai Singh PW-1 and Baljinder Singh PW-2, it is proved that Harjinder Singh, Gurmel Singh, Balwinder Singh, Chhota Singh and Baldev Singh were present outside the Court of S.D.M. Jhunir at the time of the occurrence. It is Baljinder Singh PW-2 who took Nirbhai Singh to Civil Hospital, Mansa. The ocular version put forward by Nirbhai Singh PW-1 and Baljinder Singh PW-2 is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The F.S.L. report Ex.PN also supports the ocular account, that the shot was fired from a .12 bore DBBL gun. 9. The lodging of F.I.R. is prompt. The occurrence in this case took place at 11.30 a.m. on 30.4.1993. The statement of Nirbhai Singh was recorded by ASI Surjit Singh at 3.30 p.m. in Civil Hospital, Mansa and the F.I.R. was registered at 4.30 p.m. on the same day. 10. The case of the prosecution thus stands proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 11. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. 12. Both the appeals are dismissed on merits. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. As ordered. ------------