Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal preferred by appellants-convicts Balbir Singh son of Lal Singh & others (for brevity "the appellants"), is to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2000, by virtue of which, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short "RI") for a period of 1-1/2 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month each for the commission of an offence punishable under section 148 IPC. Appellants Darshan Singh & Jaswinder Singh were substantively convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s. 307 IPC, whereas remaining appellants were convicted vicariously & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s. 307 read with section 149 IPC; Appellant Gurmel Singh was substantively convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month u/s. 326 IPC; whereas remaining appellants were convicted vicariously & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s. 326 read with section 149 IPC. Appellants Mithu Singh and Balbir Singh were convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1-1/2 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s. 325 IPC, whereas remaining appellants were convicted vicariously & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s. 325 read with section 149 IPC. Lastly, appellants Darshan Singh and Jaswinder Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s. 325 read with section 149 IPC. Lastly, appellants Darshan Singh and Jaswinder Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s. 27 of the Arms Act. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. The contour of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that fore-fathers of complainant Paramjit Kaur w/o Jarnail Singh (PW 3) (for short "the complainant") had mortgaged the land in favour of Teja Singh s/o Ishar Singh. Although the complainant & others had deposited the mortgaged money within a period of limitation, but still, Mithu Singh and Lal Singh sons of Teja Singh did not withdraw the same, resulting into the various types of civil & criminal litigation between the parties in different Courts. 2. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 28.12.1996, the complainant and other members of her family were working in their house. When appellants Mithu Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Darshan Singh were seen going towards the indicated land by raising exhortation (lalkara) saying that they were going to cultivate the same. Amritdeep Kaur (PW 4), sister-in-law of complainant also came and told her that Mithu Singh etc. had gone to plough the land. The male members of her (complainant) family were not present in the house at that time. She accompanied by her sister-in-law Amritdeep Kaur, Sukhjit Singh, her brother-in-law (PW 6), Hardial Singh her grandfather, Ajmer Kaur, her aunt and Hardev Singh (PW 5) went to the fields known as "Rohniwala field" with a view to stop Mithu Singh etc. from ploughing the land. At about 11 AM, the appellants were found standing in the field, armed with gandasas, sotis and 12 bore guns. Thereafter, appellant Darshan Singh fired a shot, which hit the left flank of Paramjit Kaur, as a result of which, she felled on the ground. Another shot fired from the gun by Darshan Singh hit her right shoulder. At about 11 AM, the appellants were found standing in the field, armed with gandasas, sotis and 12 bore guns. Thereafter, appellant Darshan Singh fired a shot, which hit the left flank of Paramjit Kaur, as a result of which, she felled on the ground. Another shot fired from the gun by Darshan Singh hit her right shoulder. Appellant Jaswinder Singh took the gun of appellant Tarlochan Singh and fired a shot therefrom towards Amritdeep Kaur, which hit her right shoulder. The other appellants have also caused injuries with gandasa and soti to the injured PWs. Thereafter the injured PWs were removed to Civil Hospital, Mansa for their treatment. 3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the appellants caused injuries to the injured PWs with their respective weapons. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex. PN) of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the appellants, by means of FIR No. 94 Dated 29.12.1996 (Ex. PN/2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 325, 326,336 read with section 149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellants to face the trial for the pointed offences. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 326, 325 read with section 149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act by way of charge sheet dated 9.4.1997 by the trial Court. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, examined PW 1 Dr. Asha Kiran, who medico legally examined Paramjit Kaur complainant (PW 3), vide MLR (Ex. PA) and found two lacerated wounds on her person. She also medico legally examined Ajmer Kaur, vide MLR (Ex. PC) and found pain in her right shoulder. On the same day, she medico legally examined Amritdeep Kaur (PW 4), by virtue of MLR (Ex. PD) and found pain in her right upper arm. Dr. PA) and found two lacerated wounds on her person. She also medico legally examined Ajmer Kaur, vide MLR (Ex. PC) and found pain in her right shoulder. On the same day, she medico legally examined Amritdeep Kaur (PW 4), by virtue of MLR (Ex. PD) and found pain in her right upper arm. Dr. Parshotam Goyal (PW 2) medico legally examined Hardev Singh (PW 5), by way of MLR (Ex. PH) and found one lacerated wound & three swellings. Dr. Pankaj Sharma (PW 10) medico legally examined Sukhjit Singh (PW 6), vide MLR (Ex. PX) and found one incised wound, linear abrasion & superficial abrasion. Dr. Chhagan Lal (PW 9) radio logically examined Amritdeep Kaur, vide his report (Ex. PR). He also radiologically examined Paramjit Kaur, by means of his report (Ex. PS). He further medicolegally examined Hardev Singh (PW 5), vide his report (Ex. PT). He also conducted radiological examination of Ajmer Kaur injured, by way of report (Ex. PU). He further conducted the x-ray examination of Sukhjit Singh injured, vide his report (Ex. PV). 7. Sequelly, the prosecution has also examined Paramjit Kaur complainant as PW 3, eye/injured witnesses Amritdeep Kaur as PW 4, Hardev Singh as PW 5, Sukhjit Singh as PW 6. PW 7 ASI Suraj Bhan, PW 8 HC Shivji Ram, PW 11 Constable Supinder Singh, PW 12 Constable Gursewak Singh, PW 14 SI Sukhdev Singh and PW 15 Vikram Singh the then Inspector have testified their investigation. Balwinder Singh, Clerk was examined as PW 13. The prosecution has also placed reliance on police request (Ex. PB), opinion (Ex. PB/1), application (Ex. PE), opinion (Ex. PE/1), application (Ex. PF), opinion (Ex. PF/1), application (Ex. PG), opinion (Ex. PG/1), application (Ex. PJ), opinion (Ex. PJ/1), application (Ex. PK), opinion (Ex. PK/1), rough sketch of gandasa (Ex. PL), recovery memo of gandasa (Ex. PL/1), sketch of gandasa (Ex. PM), police request (Ex. PM), opinion (Ex. PM/1), recovery memo of 12 bore gun (Ex. PO), application of doctor (Ex. PS/1), opinion (Ex. PS/2), application (Ex. PX/2), opinion (Ex. PX/3), writing (Ex. PY), application (Ex. PZ), opinion (Ex. PZ/1), arms licenses (Ex. PDD & Ex. PEE), rough site plan (Ex. PFF), jamatalashi (Ex. PGG), recovery memo of clothes (Ex. PHH) and FSL reports (Ex. PJJ & Ex. PKK) in documentary evidence. 8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded. PX/2), opinion (Ex. PX/3), writing (Ex. PY), application (Ex. PZ), opinion (Ex. PZ/1), arms licenses (Ex. PDD & Ex. PEE), rough site plan (Ex. PFF), jamatalashi (Ex. PGG), recovery memo of clothes (Ex. PHH) and FSL reports (Ex. PJJ & Ex. PKK) in documentary evidence. 8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the appellants have denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following manner:- Complainant wants to take forcible possession of the land in dispute. Accused Teja Singh and Mithu Singh also obtained stay from the Court. We did not cause any injuries to any of the injured. The injuries were fabricated by the injured in connivance with the Doctor. 9. The appellants, in order to prove the line of defence, have examined Bhagwan Singh Patwari as DW 1 and proved documents (Ex. DA to Ex. DJ). This is all the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties. 10. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the appellants were convicted & sentenced by the trial Court in the manner described here-in-above. 11. The appellants still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence. That is how I am seized of the matter. 12. At the very outset, the celebrated argument of learned counsel for appellants that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove a criminal charge, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 13. As is evident from the record that the prosecution has examined Paramjit Kaur complainant as PW 3, who has set the police machinery into motion and made her statement (Ex. PN) in this regard, which formed the basis of FIR (Ex. PN/2). Not only that, her statement was corroborated by the injured/eye witnesses (PW 4 to PW 6). Instead of reproducing their entire evidence and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that they have fully corroborated the prosecution version on all participatory aspects and proved the complicity of the appellants. PN/2). Not only that, her statement was corroborated by the injured/eye witnesses (PW 4 to PW 6). Instead of reproducing their entire evidence and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that they have fully corroborated the prosecution version on all participatory aspects and proved the complicity of the appellants. They were cross-examined at length, but no substantial material could be elicited in their cross examination to dislodge their testimony and impeach their credibility. No motive could possibly be attributed to the injured/eye witnesses as to why they would falsely implicate the appellants in this case. They gave a vivid, consistent and cogent version of the occurrence and supported the prosecution story on all vital counts. The ocular version is duly supported by medical evidence. The investigating officers have duly testified their investigation. 14. Therefore, if the entire oral as well as documentary and medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution as narrated herein-above is put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that it stands proved on record that the appellants have committed the pointed offences and they are liable to be convicted thereunder. 15. Faced with the grave situation, the learned counsel for appellants has fairly acknowledged that in view of the indicated cogent evidence on record, he will not be in a position to contest the conviction of the appellants any more. He has no other argument/material/ground, much less cogent, to assail the prosecution version. In this manner, as no other legal infirmity has been pointed out by him, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of fine are hereby maintained as such. 16. Be that as it may, ex facie, the contention of learned counsel that since the parties have amicably settled their civil and criminal disputes, so, the appellants deserve the leniency in the matter of their sentences, has considerable force. Not only that, in support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973) 2 S.C.C. 456 ; this Court in cases Angrez Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1983 (2) RCR (Crl) 441 and Sardara Singh and others v. State of Punjabi 2004 (3) RCR (Crl) 265. The learned State counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix & legal proposition and did not raise any serious objection with regard to reduction in the matter of sentences of the appellants. 17. As indicated here-in-above that all the appellants were convicted & sentenced on accusation of having committed the offence punishable u/s. 148 IPC, whereas appellants Darshan Singh & Jaswinder Singh were substantively convicted & sentenced u/s 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act for causing gun shot simple injuries to complainant (PW 3) and Amritdeep Kaur (PW 4). Sequelly, appellant Gurmel Singh was substantively convicted & sentenced for the commission of the offence punishable u/s 326 IPC. Likewise, appellants Mithu Singh and Balbir Singh were substantively convicted and sentenced u/s. 325 IPC, whereas the remaining appellants were convicted for vicarious liability with the aid of section 149 IPC in the manner depicted here-in-above. 18. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that all the concerned parties have amicably settled their civil & criminal disputes, by virtue of order dated 12.1.2007 (Annexure A1) of this Court, rendered in CM No. 10946-C of 2006 in RSA No. 2286 of 1981, written compromise deed dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure A2), affidavit (Annexure A3) of Sukhjit Singh son of Gulzar Singh, affidavit (Annexure A4) of complainant Paramjit Kaur (PW 3), affidavit (Annexure A5) of injured Amritdeep Kaur, affidavits of Hardev Singh (PW 5) and Ajmer Kaur. 19. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their entire disputes arising out of their civil rights. They belong to the same village. The compromise is valid, genuine and in the welfare & benefit of the parties. So, to my mind, there is no impediment in treating the settlement as a mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentences of the appellants to set the matter at rest and to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Moreover, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 20. Moreover, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 20. Therefore, taking into consideration the settlement between the parties, nature of injuries, manner of incident and totality of facts & circumstances, emerging out of the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served if the sentences of 1-1/2 years of all the appellants u/s. 148 IPC, the sentences of appellants Darshan Singh & Jaswinder Singh, who were substantively convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years u/s. 307 IPC and three years u/s. 27 of the Arms Act, the sentence of appellant Gurmel Singh, who was substantively convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years u/s. 326 IPC, the sentences of appellants Mithu Singh & Balbir Singh, who were substantively convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1-1/2 years u/s 325 IPC, are reduced to RI for a period of six months each on each count. Sequelly, the sentences of the remaining appellants, who were convicted and sentenced for vicarious liability of the indicated offences with the aid of section 149 IPC, are reduced to RI for a period of three months each on each count. The order of sentence of fine is maintained. All the pointed sentences shall run concurrently. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence of fine are maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case However, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-before. At the same time, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of the appellants forthwith and commit them to jail to serve out the remaining portion of their sentence. Needless to mention that necessary consequences & compliance will naturally follow accordingly.