JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J. The sole appellant Bhaggi, in the instant appeal, has challenged his conviction u/s 307, I.P.C. with imposed sentence of five years R.I. imposed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, recorded in S.T. No. 660 of 1978, State v. Bhaggi and others, P. S. Patiyali, district Etah, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.5.1981. Eschewing unnecessarily details and stated concisely, charge against the appellant was that, on 22.8.1977 at 4.30 p.m., in between agricultural fields of Kotwal Singh (P.W. 1) and Suraj Pal situated in village Bhainsrasi, P. S. Patiyali, district Etah he had caused gun fire injury to Raja Ram (P.W. 2) at the instigation of Chhutkan accompanied by two other accused Girija Shanker and Uma Shanker. Trial Judge held that only appellant was guilty and hence convicted him only while other three, Chhutkan, Girija Shanker and Uma Shanker, were acquitted by him by the impugned judgment. 2. Raja Ram injured (P.W. 2) was medically examined same day at 11 p.m. by Dr. Shiv Shanker Saraswat, P.W. 4, vide his medical examination report, Ext. Ka-6, the contents of which are as follows : Examined Shri Raja Ram Singh s/o Shri Bhure Singh r/o Bhainsrasi, P. S. Patiyali, Distt. Etah on 22.8.77 at 11 p.m. B/B Shri Sughar Singh, constable No. 31 C.P., P. S. Patiyali. M.I. : A raised black mole on the right Temporal region of face 2 cms. away from the ear. Injuries : (1) 15 Nos. of Gunshot lacerated wounds on the anterior, medial and lateral aspects of lower 1/3rd portion of left thigh. All are wounds of entrance. No wound of exit seen. Size varies from 1-1/2 cm. x 1 cm x 1/4 cm. to 2-1/2 cm. x 1-1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. No charring seen. No pellet palpable. Blood clotted. Direction-From front-Inward forward and Backwards. X-ray advised to locate pellets and to ascertain any bony lesion. Report.-Injury is caused by some firearm and is about 1/4 day old. The nature of injury shall be decided after X-ray report-referred to Distt. Hospital, Etah for X-ray and proper treatment. 3. Informant Kotwal Singh (P.W. 1) scribed the F.I.R.,. Ext. Ka-1, about the incident, went to the police station Patiyali district Etah and lodged it as Crime No. 139 of 1977 u/s 307, I.P.C. same day at 10.15 p.m. vide chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4, and G.D. entry Ext. Hospital, Etah for X-ray and proper treatment. 3. Informant Kotwal Singh (P.W. 1) scribed the F.I.R.,. Ext. Ka-1, about the incident, went to the police station Patiyali district Etah and lodged it as Crime No. 139 of 1977 u/s 307, I.P.C. same day at 10.15 p.m. vide chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4, and G.D. entry Ext. Ka-5, which were prepared by Pyare Lal, constable clerk. S.I. R. P. Tiwari commenced investigation into the crime but as the complaint made by informant it was transferred to S.I. H.S. Chandel P.W. 3., who interrogated Balveer Singh, conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-2 and thereafter recorded interrogatory statement of informant Kotwal Singh P.W. 1, arrested the accused and recorded their statements. After return of the injured Raja Ram (P.W. 2) his interrogatory statement was recorded and thereafter concluding investigation, Investigating Officer charge-sheeted accused on 5.10.1977 vide Ext. Ka-3. 4. Accused were summoned and finding their case triable by Sessions Court, it was committed for trial to the Sessions Court where it was registered as S.T. No. 660 of 1977, State v. Bhaggi and others. Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, vide its order dated 3.9.1980, charged appellant Bhaggi u/s 307, I.P.C. and rest of the accused u/s 307/34, I.P.C. All the accused abjured those charges who claimed to be tried and, therefore, to establish the guilt, their prosecution commenced. 5. In it's endeavour to prove the charges prosecution tendered oral evidences of four witnesses, out of whom, informant Kotwal Singh P.W. 1, injured Raja Ram P.W. 2 were the fact witnesses and Investigating Officer H. S. Chandel P.W. 3 and Dr. Shiv Shanker Saraswat P.W. 4 were formal witnesses. 6. Trial Judge after marshaling of facts, critically appreciating evidences, both documentary and oral, facts and circumstances of the case, held that so far as three of the accused Chhutkan, Girija Shanker and Uma Shanker were concerned, prosecution had failed to establish it's case against them beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted them vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.5.1981. It, however, came to the conclusion that guilt of the appellant Bhaggi u/s 307, I.P.C. simplicitor was established beyond any shadow of doubt and, therefore, convicted him for that charge and imposed sentence of five years RI, which conviction and sentence is now under challenge in the instant appeal. 7. It, however, came to the conclusion that guilt of the appellant Bhaggi u/s 307, I.P.C. simplicitor was established beyond any shadow of doubt and, therefore, convicted him for that charge and imposed sentence of five years RI, which conviction and sentence is now under challenge in the instant appeal. 7. This appeal was listed for final hearing but nobody appeared to argue it for the appellant and hence Sri Vinay Saran, advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to argue the appeal and assist the Court. I have heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and have perused trial court as well record of this appeal. 8. Castigating the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence learned amicus curiae submitted that because of the existing enmity, appellant has been falsely implicated. Only two facts witnesses who were real brothers and had ample motive to falsely implicate the appellant were examined during trial and, therefore, neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 are reliable witnesses and no authenticity can be attached to their testimonies. It is further submitted that the incident occurred in dark hours of the night and neither P.W. 1 or 2 nor any other person could identify the accused assailants and only because of previous enmity and pending proceedings u/s 107/116, Cr. P.C., that the appellant has been falsely implicated. Prosecution case is incredible and suffers from unconvincing testimonies which is indicated by the fact that the trial Judge disbelieved both the prosecution witnesses in respect of three acquitted accused and if prosecution witnesses can implicate three person they cannot be trusted solely the appellant submitted learned amicus curiae. By disbelieving P.W. 8 for other accused trial court had discredited their depositions and none of them can be bracketed as wholly reliable witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their statements contended Learned Counsel. It is next argued that motive for appellant's false implication was that prior to the present incident, sister of the appellant was enticed away by the informant and his associates regarding which an F.I.R. was also lodged against injured Raja Ram P.W. 2 and other accused from the appellant's side. Moreover 107/116, Cr. P.C. proceedings was already in vogue between contesting sides on the date of the incident, therefore, there was a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Moreover 107/116, Cr. P.C. proceedings was already in vogue between contesting sides on the date of the incident, therefore, there was a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Lastly, it is submitted that, in case, appellant Bhaggi is not given clean acquittal, since incident occurred more than three decades ago and appellant having no criminal proclivity and criminal history be sentenced to the minimum. It is next contended that in this case even if the entire prosecution version is accepted to be correct in toto, even then the charge u/s 307, I.P.C. will not be made out against the appellant in absence of repetition of shot and causing of grievous injury. No X-ray or supplementary report was brought on record to establish that charge. According to the prosecution version, injured was taken to Kanpur for better management of his injuries but the prosecution did not tender any evidence in that respect and, therefore, suppressed a major part of the incident. It is next submitted that in such fact scenario, appellant could be convicted only u/s 324, I.P.C. and not for an attempt to murder. Learned amicus curiae on the strength of above submissions contended that appellant's appeal be allowed by setting aside his conviction and sentence and he be acquitted of the charge. 9. Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, learned A.G.A., contrarily argued that it is a case where injury has been caused on the front of thigh of the injured and, therefore, there was sufficient opportunity for the injured to recognize the assailants. Defence has failed to elicit from the witnesses that any other person also could have committed the crime and, therefore, defence suggestion is incredible and cannot be accepted. It is next submitted that in enticing away case, final report was already submitted by the Investigating Officer favouring the injured and, therefore, injured could not have any motive to lodge a false case against the accused persons. It is next submitted that, in fact, the accused persons had ample motive to indulge into present incident as they must have taken elopement incident to be a temerity or faux pass for their entire family and they must have been subjected to ridicule in the village. It was further submitted that 107/116, Cr. P.C. proceedings was already going on in between the parties and, therefore, there was an ample motive for the appellant to commit the crime. It was further submitted that 107/116, Cr. P.C. proceedings was already going on in between the parties and, therefore, there was an ample motive for the appellant to commit the crime. Concludingly it was submitted that appellant's conviction be maintained as it is well merited and does not require any interference by this Court. 10. I have considered the arguments raised by both the sides. Incident in this appeal occurred in the afternoon at 4.30 p.m. when there was sunlight and since shot was fired at from the front therefore, injured must not had difficulty in identifying the assailant of gunshot fire at him. During his cross-examination defence got it elicited from the injured that the shot was fired upon him from a distance of four or five feet. In such a view, it is difficult to accept appellant's contention that the assailants could not have been identified by anybody. So far as testimony of Kotwal Singh P.W. 1 is concerned, according to the injured statement he reached at the spot after the incident had already occurred, after hearing shrieks of the injured and, therefore, he could not have spotted the assailants. Even if evidence of P.W. 1 is kept out of consideration, testimony of injured does not get dented in any manner and it does not distract the main substantum of the prosecution allegations. Injured seems to be a truthful and reliable witness on whom implicit reliance can be placed. His presence, being injured, cannot be doubted at the spot. Appellant had ample motive to commit the crime. His case stands on altogether different footing than acquitted accused as but for appellant no other person participated in the incident. Neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 could specify any role to others and their mere presence as passive onlooker was insufficient to nail them into the crime. They did not participate in the incident at all. Acquittal of other accused persons does not affect the conviction of the present appellant more so because dictum of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply to our criminal jurisprudential system. Prosecution versions is well corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Shiv Shanker Saraswat P.W. 4, who was unambiguous in stating that the injury sustained by the injured, as was noted by him in injured medical examination report, Ext. Ka-6, was caused by firearm. Prosecution versions is well corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Shiv Shanker Saraswat P.W. 4, who was unambiguous in stating that the injury sustained by the injured, as was noted by him in injured medical examination report, Ext. Ka-6, was caused by firearm. On the said opinion by the doctor was not challenged at all by the defence and hence accused failed to dislodge his testimony. On an overall assessment of the entire facts and circumstances of the case it is difficult to lean in favour of defence argument that the appellant has been falsely implicated ignoring creditworthy depositions of prosecution witnesses. Conviction of the appellant therefore, is infallible and is hereby affirmed. 11. Now turning towards the question, as to what offence has been committed by the appellant it is revealed from own showing of the prosecution that a single shot was fired on the thigh of the injured without repetition of the shot. Injury sustained by the injured was simple in nature as the prosecution intentionally and deliberately suppressed other medical examination reports to be brought on record suggesting causing of grievous injury. The reason for it is not understandable but remains a fact. There is no supplementary or X-ray report. Dr. Shiv Shanker Saraswat P.W. 4 was cross-examined on this aspect of the matter by the defence. He categorically deposed that injured was referred to District Hospital, Etah for management of his injuries. Doctor however was unable to divulge as to whether injury sustained by the injured was dangerous to life or grievous in nature. A single shot on the lower part of the body without repetition of the same from a distance is not indicative of the fact that the shooter had an intention to commit murder. From the evidences produced in the trial and from other surrounding circumstances and established facts what can be concluded without faltering is that the assailant had an intention to cause simple hurt by dangerous weapon and there was absence of intention to commit murder, which is sine qua non for holding a person guilty for the charge u/s 307, I.P.C. Appellant, therefore, can be held to be guilty only u/s 324 and not u/s 307, I.P.C. To this extent impugned judgment is unsustainable and deserves to be altered. In view of above discussion conviction of the appellant u/s 307, I.P.C. is hereby scored out and is substituted by convicting him u/s 324, I.P.C. 12. Coming to the sentence, incident occurred more than three decades ago. At the time of the incident, appellant was a young boy of 20 years age. As on date, he is above 50 years of age. He is well-settled in life and during three decades gone by, there was no complaint against him. He had no criminal history nor was a previous convict. In such a view, directing the appellant to go to prison after a gap of thirty years to serve out jail term, in my humble opinion, will not be justified. Section 324, I.P.C. is punishable maximum with three years of imprisonment with or without fine. Appellant had already undergone near about three weeks of imprisonment as he was convicted on 25.5.1981 and was allowed bail by this Court on 12.6.1981. Looking to above facts period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant with fine of R 15,000 with compensation of R 10,000 to the injured P.W. 2 Raja Ram, in my humble view will meet the ends of justice. 13. Wrapping up the discussion, this appeal is allowed in part. Appellant's conviction and sentence u/s 307, I.P.C. is set aside and instead he is convicted u/s 324, I.P.C. for which offence he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him with fine of R 15,000, out of which R 10,000 is awarded as compensation to the victim Raja Ram, (P.W. 2). Appellant is allowed one month time to deposit entire amount of fine, failing which, trial Judge is directed to realize it as arrears of land revenue within a month thereafter and, after noticing the injured, handover awarded compensation to him. Appellant is on bail. He need not surrender but his sureties shall be discharged only after he has deposited the fine or the same has been realized from him. Let a copy of the judgment be certified to the trial Judge for it's intimation.