JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.: - Appellant Ajit Singh, along with one Massa Singh, was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.106 dated 30.11.1995 registered at Police Station Harike, District Amritsar under Sections 307/323/34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, vide its judgment dated 25th March, 2002, acquitted the appellant Ajit Singh for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, however held him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Whereas, Co-accused Massa Singh was acquitted of all the charges leveled against him. Vide a separate order of even date, appellant Ajit Singh was sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He was further sentenced under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On 27th November, 1995 at about 4.00 p.m. in the area of village Ghariyala, appellant had fired a gunshot at Hardip Singh and had caused him injuries. Case of the prosecution is that Hardip Singh at the time of occurrence, was present outside his house. Accused Ajit Singh came armed with a single barrel 12 bore gun, whereas his co-accused Massa Singh was empty handed. Massa Singh raised a lalkara that Hardip Singh should be taught a lesson for taking possession over the land. Ajit Singh fired a shot, which hit on the left and right sides of head of Hardip Singh. Hardip Singh fell down on the ground. Ajit Singh gave blows with the butt of gun on the left eye, right thigh and right side of hip of Hardip Singh. The occurrence was witnessed by Jaswant Singh son of Hardip Singh. On the noise raised, Ajit Singh along with Massa Singh decamped from the spot. On 30th November, 1995, on the statement Ex.PH made by injured Hardip Singh, formal FIR Ex.PK was registered. 3. Dr. Manjit Singh PW-1 on 28th November, 1995 at about 7.00 p.m. had medico legally examined injured Hardip Singh and found following injuries on his person: “1. On the noise raised, Ajit Singh along with Massa Singh decamped from the spot. On 30th November, 1995, on the statement Ex.PH made by injured Hardip Singh, formal FIR Ex.PK was registered. 3. Dr. Manjit Singh PW-1 on 28th November, 1995 at about 7.00 p.m. had medico legally examined injured Hardip Singh and found following injuries on his person: “1. A lacerated wound 1 x 0.75 cm present on the right occipital region of the scalp surrounded by reddish contusion 3 cm in diameter, present on the right occipital region. The wound was skin deep. Blood clots were present in the wound. 2. A lacerated wound 3.5 x 0.5 cm present on the left side of the scalp. The wound contained blood clots and was skin deep. 3. A lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 cm present on the left eye brow. The wound contained blood clots advised X-ray. 4. A lacerated punctured wound 0.5 x 1 cm present on the back of the left hand at the base of index finger of the left hand. Margins inverted and ecchymosed. The wound was surrounded by diffused painful swelling kept under observation subject to X-ray. Blood stained cloth marked and signed. 5. An abrasion 5 x 0.25 cm present on the front of the right thigh. 6. An abrasion 6 x 0.25 cm on the right side of the pelvis region.” 4. These injuries were declared simple in nature. 5. Injured Hardip Singh appeared as PW-3 and reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. His testimony was duly corroborated by his son Jaswant Singh PW-4. 6. Rishi Ram PW-2 had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PG. 7. ASI Harminder Singh PW-5 stated that on 29th November, 1995 on receipt of medico legal report from Civil Hospital, Ghariyala, he reached there and sought opinion of the doctor, who vide Ex.PD/1 opined that the injured was not fit for statement. On the next day, i.e. 30th November, 1995 the doctor vide endorsement Ex.PD/2 opined that the injured Ajit Singh was fit to make statement and his statement Ex.PH was recorded by this witness, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PK was registered. This witness further stated that on 4th December, 1995 Sarpanch Avtar Singh had produced the accused Ajit Singh along with his single barrel gun before him. 8. This witness further stated that on 4th December, 1995 Sarpanch Avtar Singh had produced the accused Ajit Singh along with his single barrel gun before him. 8. Constable Palwinder Singh PW-6 had tested the gun and declared the same to be in working condition. 9. Kashmir Singh, Reader to ADC, Tarn Taran, appeared as PW-7 and proved the sanction granted to prosecute the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 10. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and a statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. 11. In defence, Tarlok Singh Sarpanch of the village was examined as DW-1. 12. Mr. V.K. Chaudhari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has stated that there was a delay in lodging of the report to the police. Jaswant Singh, a non-injured eye-witness, who is son of the injured Hardip Singh, was available at the spot when occurrence took place. He had made no attempt to lodge the report. Therefore, the prosecution version is entirely false. 13. This argument is to be rejected out-rightly. The benefit of delay, if any, has already been granted by recording acquittal of co-accused Massa Singh. In the occurrence, Hardip Singh had received gunshot injuries, which were on his right occipital region and left eye. These injuries cannot be self suffered. Injured Hardip Singh PW-3 will be the last person to substitute the accused. Therefore, testimonies of Hardip Singh PW-3 and Jaswant Singh PW-4 aspire confidence. Furthermore, the first anxiety of the relations is to attend the injured. Hardip Singh had received gunshot injuries and he was to be taken to the hospital immediately. 14. Counsel for the appellant has further stated that no independent witness has been examined. In a case, where the injured himself deposed against the accused, there is no need for corroboration to his testimony from an independent witness. Defence has failed to cause any dent in the testimonies of Hardip Singh PW-3 and Jaswant Singh PW-4. Their evidence is trustworthy. 15. Mr.Chaudhari has further stated that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year 1995. A period of more than 15 years has elapsed. Defence has failed to cause any dent in the testimonies of Hardip Singh PW-3 and Jaswant Singh PW-4. Their evidence is trustworthy. 15. Mr.Chaudhari has further stated that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year 1995. A period of more than 15 years has elapsed. Therefore, this Court may consider reduction in sentence as the appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. This Court is of the opinion that the trial Court had already dealt with the appellant very leniently for causing an arm injury on the head of Hardip Singh PW-3 and had awarded a sentence of only six months rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, there is no ground to reduce the sentence of the appellant. 16. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------