Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. Appellants, namely, Virender Singh and Devender @ Gorkhi, have filed Criminal Appeal No. S-192-SB of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. S-1022-SB of 2003, against the judgment dated 17.12.2002 and 19.12.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court-II, Faridabad, vide which the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/-, under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- each under Section 452 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the case in hand, recorded by the learned trial Court in its judgment are that, on 04.05.1997, at about 09:15 p.m. PW-4, Brij Mohan, was lying on a cot in his room. His brothers Dulle Ram and Jai Ram were also lying on cots on 'Chabutra'. Virender and one more person came to his house and called him to come out of his room. He asked them to come in the room where he was lying. On entering the room, accused-Virender who was having a country-made pistol with him, fired a shot hitting him below his left ear. Particles like pellets hit his entire face. On hearing the shot, both of his brothers came down to his room. He also stated that he already knew Virender and that he had completely seen the face of the other person who was accompanying Virender. He further stated that while going, Virender had also given a threat that this time he was saved and would not be spared next time. His both the brothers, who had also come to his room, chased the accused, but did not succeed. PW-4, Brij Mohan further stated that the motive of firing a shot at him by Virender was that in the year 1988, he had purchased one Killa of land from Ganga Lal, a collateral of Virender, on account of which Virender was nursing a grudge against him since then. PW-4, Brij Mohan further stated that the motive of firing a shot at him by Virender was that in the year 1988, he had purchased one Killa of land from Ganga Lal, a collateral of Virender, on account of which Virender was nursing a grudge against him since then. After having received the shot injury, he was taken to General Hospital, Palwal from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. 2. After completion of investigation, the challan against both the accused-appellant was presented before the Magistrate's Court. Since, the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, for trial. The charge was framed against the accused-appellants vide order dated 24.08.1998, under Sections 452,307 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 ASI Rohtas Singh, PW2 Suresh Kumar, PW3 Dr. V.P. Gupta, PW4 Brij Mohan-the complainant, PW5 Jai Ram, PW6 HC Braham Parkash, PW7 ASI Ram Rattan, PW8 Inspector Daryao Singh, PW10 Inspector Sanwal Singh, PW11 Constable Balvinder, PW12 Inspector Suraj Bhan, PW13 S.P. Mamta Singh, PW14 Sarvan Kumar and PW15 SI Surjit Kumar. 4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of appellants-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which they denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, the appellant-accused produced only one witness, namely, Rajbir Singh as DW1 in their defence. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as under :-- Under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC Imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. Under Section 452 IPC Imprisonment for a period of htree years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, these two present appeals preferred by the appellants, Virender Singh and Devender @ Gorkhi, were admitted by this Court on 30.01.2003 and 24.05.2003, respectively. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, these two present appeals preferred by the appellants, Virender Singh and Devender @ Gorkhi, were admitted by this Court on 30.01.2003 and 24.05.2003, respectively. 7. In Criminal Appeal No. S-192-SB of 2003, learned Senior Counsel contended on behalf of the appellant-Virender Singh, that the prosecution evidence being discrepant and unreliable does not inspire confidence and not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. There is an inordinate delay of about 18/19 hours in lodging the FIR and in sending the copy of the FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate under Section 157 Cr.P.C., this fact itself speaks volumes of falsity of the case. against the appellant. It is next contended that Virender accompanied by one unknown person came to the house of Brij Mohan-the complainant, and fired a shot on him with some shining weapon like a fire-arm, however, during initial investigation and as per statements of the alleged eye-witness the fire was shot by the person accompanying Virender and not by the appellant-Virender Singh. Even, no weapon was recovered from the appellant-Virender. A report was prepared by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and as per that report, it was found that firing was done by the person accompanying the appellant, whose name subsequently came to be Devender @ Gorkhi. PW-10, Inspector Sanwal Singh, Investigating Officer stated that "It is correct that recovery of pistol was made from accused-Devender @ Gorkhi but it was doubtful that shot was fired by Devender @ Gorkhi or Virender". 8. There was no intention to cause death of the complainant as only one shot was fired. No repeated shots were fired. The shot was fired from a long distance and the injuries so sustained by the injured-Brij Mohan (the complainant) were not serious. The learned Senior counsel contended that PW-4, Brij Mohan and accused-appellant, Virender being co-villager have compromised the matter and the complainant party does not want to take any legal recourse against the appellant-Virender. Lastly, it is contended that in view of the compromise reached between the parties, a lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken. The learned Senior counsel sought permission of the Court to submit the copy of the compromise as the same was not readingly available. Lastly, it is contended that in view of the compromise reached between the parties, a lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken. The learned Senior counsel sought permission of the Court to submit the copy of the compromise as the same was not readingly available. CRA-S-1022-SB of 2003 Devender @ Gorkhi v. State of Haryana 9. It is submitted that the accused-appellant did not cause any injury to anyone including Brij Mohan-PW-4. All that had been alleged is that the appellant had simply accompanied Virender Singh (the main accused) to the house of PW-4, Brij Mohan on 04.05.1997 at about 09.15 pm, when Virender Singh allegedly had fired a shot from his pistol at Brij Mohan. The accused-appellant is totally innocent. Even, as per the allegations of the complainant-PW-4 (Brij Mohan), it was Virender Singh who had a motive for causing injury to him. There was no motive or intention on the part of the present accused-appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi to cause injury tot he complainant. The police had recorded a detailed con-fession-cum-disclosure statement of coaccused, Virender Singh, and had then shown the alleged recovery of the pistol at the instance of the present accused-appellant- Devender @ Gorkhi. This was an act of fabrication and padding on the part of the police. The precautions requires to be observed by the investigating officer in such cases were not observed in the case of the accused-appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi. 10. At the time of his arrest, the appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi was not informed that he should keep his face muffled as he was to take part in a test identification parade. When he was produced in Court, even then he was not asked to muffle his face and he was produced in Court in open face after showing him to a number of persons including PW-4, Brij Mohan and his brother PW-5, Jai Ram. Hence, the accused-appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi may be acquitted in the present case on account of the material infirmities and fatal lacunae in the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi cites "Kundan Singh v. State of Punjab " 1982 AIR (SC) 62. 11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has supported the judgment passed by learned trial Court. It is contended that PW4, Brij Mohan injured and PW5, Jai Ram and eye-witness supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi cites "Kundan Singh v. State of Punjab " 1982 AIR (SC) 62. 11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has supported the judgment passed by learned trial Court. It is contended that PW4, Brij Mohan injured and PW5, Jai Ram and eye-witness supported the prosecution case. Their statements find full corroboration to the medical evidence. The learned State Counsel referred to the statement of PW3, Dr. V.P. Gupta, who medically examined injured PW4, Brij Mohan, which reads as under:-- "Multiple numerous reddish small haeragic spots over the face in the size 0.1 x 1.25 cm all over the face. The face was swollen. X-ray was advised and Surgeon opinion was sought. Lacerated wound below left ear irregular in shape measuring 1.5 x 1.25 cm into bone deep, irregular in shape with fresh bleeding. X-ray was advised and Surgeon opinion was sought. Metallic articles recovered from haemargic spots were sealed in a voil with one seal at the neck of the bottle and handed over to the police for further investigation from Director FSL, Madhuban Karnal along with a sample of seal and a forwarding letter. Brij Mohan was referred to Safdarjung Hospital for further treatment." 12. It is further contended that even if the compromise has been effected, provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., are not applicable in case under Section307 of the Indian Penal Code as has been held in "State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak" 2014(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 202. "After examining the facts of this case and the medical record, we are of the opinion that it was not a case where High Court should have quashed the proceedings in exercise of its discretion under Section 482 of the Code. We may, at the outset, refer to the judgment of this Court in Gulabdas & Ors v. State of M.P., 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 220 : 2011(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 381:2011(12) Scale 625 wherein following view was taken:-- "7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the only question that falls for determination is whether the prayer for composition of the offence under Section 307 IPC could be allowed having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Our answer is in the negative. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the only question that falls for determination is whether the prayer for composition of the offence under Section 307 IPC could be allowed having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Our answer is in the negative. This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ram Lal & Anr. v. State of J&K, 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 92: (1999) 2 SCC 213 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1: 2008(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 471 : (2008) 15 SCC 667 . We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permission to compound the offence for which Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 stand convicted". 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully with their able assistance. Criminal Appeal No. S-1022-SB of 2003 14. The question that emerges for determination in this appeal is whether, appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi was present at the place of occurrence along with co-accused-Virender Singh at the time of firing by co-accused-Virender Singh on PW4, Brij Mohan. This Court has re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record in order to separate the grains from the chaff. The golden principle of the judicial system is that hundred accused persons may go scot free, but a single innocent person should not languish in jail, which would be a great traversity of justice. In the case, in hand, accused-appellant, De-vender Singh @ Gorkhi was not named in the statement Ex. PA of injured, Brij Mohan, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded in the Police Station. No identity of the unknown person is described in the statement. There is no dispute about the identity of main accused Virender Singh, who fired at the injured victim. As per the accomplice of main accused was empty handed. No overt act has been attributed to the companion of the main accused. No test identification was got conducted in respect of the appellant. There is no dispute about the identity of main accused Virender Singh, who fired at the injured victim. As per the accomplice of main accused was empty handed. No overt act has been attributed to the companion of the main accused. No test identification was got conducted in respect of the appellant. PW-10, Inspector Sanwal Singh, on 15.05.1997, arrested the appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi; and shown recovery of 315 bore countrymade pistol from him at a naka point. A separate FIR No. 362 dated 15.05.1997, was registered at Police Station City Palwal, under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused-appellant was tried for offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal, and was acquitted on 07.03.2002, vide judgment Ex. DX. This shows the over-jealousness of investigator to rope the present accused-appellant in this false case too. Ex. PG is the disclosure statement of main accused recorded by this Investigating Officer to the effect that he has kept concealed a pistol, which he could get recovered, but no recovery was got effect from the main accused in pursuance of this disclosure statement Ex. PG. Not only this, this Investigating Officer has stated in Court that he was doubtful as to which of the accused, out of the two, fired at the victim. This Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-637 of 1998, filed by PW4, Brij Mohan for withdrawal of investigation from SHO Sanwal Singh, ordered that the investigation be conducted under the supervision of some Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, the investigation was entrusted to PW-13, ASP Mamta Singh, who reached to the conclusion that the shot in fact was fired by the main accused-Virender Singh and not by Devender @ Gorkhi. In view of report of this officer, PW15 SI Surjit Singh submitted supplementary challan in Court on 04.02.2000. The Investigating Officer Sanwal Singh, in the statements of Dulhe Ram and Jai Ram under Section 161Cr.P.C., recorded that the shot was fired by Devender @ Gorkhi. PW4, Brij Mohan had specifically stated that the police had wrongly recorded the facts of the case being in collusion with the main accused Virender. The Investigating Officer Sanwal Singh, in the statements of Dulhe Ram and Jai Ram under Section 161Cr.P.C., recorded that the shot was fired by Devender @ Gorkhi. PW4, Brij Mohan had specifically stated that the police had wrongly recorded the facts of the case being in collusion with the main accused Virender. PW4, Brij Mohan admitted in his cross-examination that on the day of occurrence, he did not know Devender; he did not give his name to the police; at the time of occurrence Devender was empty handed and that Devender had not caused any injury to him. This accused had no motive, ill-will or grudge against the victim. For the sake of arguments even, if it is assumed that Devender @ Gorkhi went along with main accused, by no stretch of imagination, 'common intention' or 'common knowledge' can be attributed to Devender @ Gorkhi. No overt act has been attributed to him by the victim himself. So, neither Section 34 nor Section 452 IPC can be fastened upon him. The possibility of false implication of this accused cannot be ruled out being the friend of the main accused. This accused may not be aware of or having the knowledge that the main accused was having pistol with him. The main accused may not have shared his plan to this accused for having committed the crime. After firing, Virender accused had threatened the complainant that at that time he was saved and he would not spare him next time. The main allegation against Devender @ Gorkhi remains that he had simply accompanied Virender Singh-main accused to the house of PW4, Brij Mohan. So, keeping in view the over-all circumstances, particularly the tainted investigation, acquittal of the present accused-appellant in Arms Act case, statement of PW13, ASP Mamta Singh and that no active role was played by accused and other circumstances, this Court is of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused-Devender @ Gorkhi, beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. S-1022-SB of 2003, is allowed, judgment of conviction and sentence qua Devender @ Gorkhi, is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him by way of abundant caution. He was ordered to be released on bail, in this appeal, vide order dated 23.10.2003, of this Court. His bonds stand discharged. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. S-1022-SB of 2003, is allowed, judgment of conviction and sentence qua Devender @ Gorkhi, is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him by way of abundant caution. He was ordered to be released on bail, in this appeal, vide order dated 23.10.2003, of this Court. His bonds stand discharged. 16. Now, this Court will deal with Criminal Appeal No. S-192-SB of 2003, titled as "Virender Singh v. State of Haryana". Criminal Appeal No. S-192-SB of 2003 17. This appeal has been filed by main accused-Virender Singh. 18. In this case, the occurrence took placed on 04.05.1997 at 09.15 p.m., at village Kakrali, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad. The injured with injuries was immediately removed to Government Hospital, Palwal, from where he was referred to Safdar Jang Hospital, Delhi. A ruqqa was received from General Hospital, Palwal, in the Police Station Palwal on 04.05.1997, at 11.45 p.m. On receipt of ruqqa, Head Constable Ram Rattan rushed to the General Hospital, Palwal, from where he came to know that the injured had already been referred to the Safdar Jang Hospital, Delhi. Head Constable Ram Rattan along with another police constable reached Safdar Jang Hospital, Delhi on 05.05.1997 and recorded the statement Ex. PA of injured Brij Mohan at 10.15 a.m. The Head Constable sent this statement Ex. PA to the police station for registration of formal FIR, on the basis of which the formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was registered in the police station at 01.20 p.m. on the same day under Sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC. The copy of the FIR was received by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal at 08.10 p.m. At initial stage, it was not a special report case. Later on, the offence under Section 307 IPC was added. As a matter of fact, it is a case of single accused, who is named in the FIR and whose identity is not in dispute. The first anxiety of the brothers of the injured was to provide immediate medical treatment to their brother, who had received injuries over the entire face. On coming to know that the General Hosptial authorities, Palwal had sent ruqqa to the police station, the brothers of the injured might had been satisfied that the police would contact them for further action in the matter. On coming to know that the General Hosptial authorities, Palwal had sent ruqqa to the police station, the brothers of the injured might had been satisfied that the police would contact them for further action in the matter. The brothers could not leave the injured along unattended in hospital at Delhi for reporting the matter to the police at Palwal. The sequence of events shows that in fact there is no delay in reporting the matter to the police. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is repelled. 19. The next contention of the learned Senior counsel is that no recovery of the weapon was effected from the appellant- Virender Singh, the recovery of the weapon was effected from co-accused- Devender @ Gorkhi, so the benefit of doubt may be granted to the appellant-Virender Singh. This contention is also repelled in view of the fact that PW13, Ms. Mamta Singh, the Superintendent of Police, was entrusted with the investigation of this case on 30.10.1998, who, after detailed open and secret enquiries found that the shot was fired by the accused-Virender Singh. The injured, suspecting that the Investigating Officer was not conducting the investigation properly, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-637 of 1998, in this Court on the ground that SHO Sanwal Singh was treating Devender @ Gorkhi as the main accused, whereas, Virender Singh son of Lakhi was the main accused. The complainant party in the petition himself stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-637 of 1998, copy of which is on record as Mark-A, that the investigation conducted by the police is tainted. SHO Sanwal Singh had tried to derail the investigation by planting a pistol on Devender @ Gorkhi, who was acquitted by the trial Magistrate in the Arms Act case; vide judgment Ex. DX. No appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal judgment of Devender @ Gorkhi. In the connected paras dealt by this common judgment, Devender @ Gorkhi stands acquitted of the charge in this case also. So, it is not fair to contend that it is Devender @ Gorkhi, from whom the weapon of offence was recovered or that he was the main accused, had fired at PW4, Brij Mohan. 20. In the connected paras dealt by this common judgment, Devender @ Gorkhi stands acquitted of the charge in this case also. So, it is not fair to contend that it is Devender @ Gorkhi, from whom the weapon of offence was recovered or that he was the main accused, had fired at PW4, Brij Mohan. 20. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the injuries found on the person of PW4, Brij Mohan could not have been caused by a fire arm. He contended that in fact PW4, Brij Mohan, had suffered a gun-shot injury on his face and neck. PW3, Dr. V.P. Gupta, found the following injuries on the person of PW4, Brij Mohan:-- "Multiple numerous reddish small haeragic spots over the face in the size 0.1 x 1.25 cm all over the face. The face was swollen. X-ray was advised and Surgeon opinion was sought. Lacerated wound below left ear irregular in shape measuring 1.5 x 1.25 cm into bone deep, irregular in shape with fresh bleeding. X-ray was advised and Surgeon opinion was sought. Metallic articles recovered from haemargic spots were sealed in a voil with one seal at the neck of the bottle and handed over to the police for further investigation from Director FSL, Madhuban Karnal along with a sample of seal and a forwarding letter. Brij Mohan was referred to Safdarjung Hospital for further treatment." 21. A bullet found from the place of occurrence was handed-over to the police, which was later on sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which was found to be fired from the country-made pistol shown to have been recovered from the coaccused- Devender @ Gorkhi. The latter was acquitted in the Arms Act case and being acquitted in this assault case. There are specific allegations of malafide against SHO Sanwal Singh, who tried to shift burden of this case from the main accused-appellant-Virender Singh to Devender @ Gorkhi. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ipse dixit of the injured PW4, Brij Mohan and his brother PW5, Jai Ram. It also lends to the nature of weapon used by the main accused-Virender Singh. In "Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana" 1984(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 204: AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1233, it has been held that if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence. It also lends to the nature of weapon used by the main accused-Virender Singh. In "Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana" 1984(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 204: AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1233, it has been held that if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence. In "Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujrat" AIR 1983 Supreme Court 484, it has been held as under:-- "Ordinarily, the value of the medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The case which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby dis-credit the eye-witness. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the matter alleged by eyewitness, the testimony of the eye-witness cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence." 22. In the case, in hand, there is consistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence. The presence of the eyewitnesses, who are real brothers of the injured is natural and probable at 09.15 p.m. at the house. The eye-witnesses on hearing the noise of fire-arm was attracted to the spot. Being in the adjacent house, they could have easily reached on the spot and it cannot be said that they have not seen the actual occurrence. The eye-witness even chased the assailants, but, the accused were successful in escaping from the spot. PW4, Brij Mohan, immediately told PW5, Jai Ram that the accused-appellant, Virender had caused fire arm injury to him. This part of conversation between the injured and the eye-witness is admissible in evidence being registered under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. The same version appeared in the FIR as well. The conduct of the witnesses is natural. So, it is held that Virender Singh caused the fire arm injury to PW4, Brij Mohan within the view of PW5, Jai Ram and Dulhe Ram at the house of the injured. The motive for the assault is fully established. 23. The same version appeared in the FIR as well. The conduct of the witnesses is natural. So, it is held that Virender Singh caused the fire arm injury to PW4, Brij Mohan within the view of PW5, Jai Ram and Dulhe Ram at the house of the injured. The motive for the assault is fully established. 23. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that in fact the appellant-Virender Singh, had not fired at PW4, Brij Mohan, as the appellant was present at village Ratipur at the time of the incident. The learned counsel referred to the statement of DW1, Rajbir Singh, who stated that the appellant-Virender had come to this witness on 04.05.1997, remained with him on the night of 4th/5th May, 1997 and went back to his village on the evening of 5th May, 1997. He remained there in connection with paralytic treatment of one Dulli, brother of Naval, from Hakim Sukhi. The onus to establish alibi is on the accused and if it is not discharged satisfactorily, this Court will not interfere. Plea of alibi has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. Where there is ample time for the accused to reach to the place of the occurrence, he is to prove that he could not and did not reach at the place of occurrence at the time of the occurrence. It has come in the crossexamination of this DW1 that distance between village Ratipur (where the accused was allegedly present at the time of occurrence) and village Kakrali (where the occurrence took place) is 10-12 Kms. only. Dulli the patient and the accused Virender, are not related to each other. Dully, the patient, belongs to village Alika, who is alive, but Hakim Sukhi is stated to be dead. The patient-Dulli, who was the best witness did not come to support the plea of alibi raised by the accused-appellant-Virender Singh. This plea of alibi for the first time saw the light of the day on 12.11.2002, while the incident took place on 04.05.1997. no such plea of alibi was taken by this accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. So, the plea of alibi of the appellant-Virender Singh being an after thought is outrightly rejected. 24. This plea of alibi for the first time saw the light of the day on 12.11.2002, while the incident took place on 04.05.1997. no such plea of alibi was taken by this accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. So, the plea of alibi of the appellant-Virender Singh being an after thought is outrightly rejected. 24. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that from the injuries no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. He referred to the statement of PW3, Dr. V.P. Gupta and contends that the injuries are not dangerous to life. For the purpose of the offence to fall under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the most material ingredient is the intention or knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out that intention. As we know, intention and knowledge being a man's state of mind, cannot possibly be proved by direct evidence, which can only be inferred, proved and gathered by the surrounding circumstances available on record. In the case, in hand, keeping in view the ocular, medical and documentary evidence, it is made out that the accused, Virender Singh had intention and knowledge to kill PW4, Brij Mohan, for which he entered the room of the victim at 09.15 p.m., directly fired a shot hitting him on the face, neck, etc. the pellets hit the entire face. On noticing the arrival of PW5 Jai Ram and another brother of the injured, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. The witnesses chased the accused but could not caught hold the accused due to darkness. The medical record of Safdar Jang Hospital, Delhi proved that Brij Mohan patient had suffered gun shot injuries on his face and neck, which is vital portion of the body. It is also proved on record that the shot fired had also hit the left ear. As stated earlier, the medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony of PW4, Brij Mohan and PW5 Jai Ram that the injury caused was fire arm injury. The fact that injury was only skin deep is not of much help to the accused as sometimes due to low velocity of cartridge heaving very old gun powder, the pellets touch the skin, do not pierce in body and fall on the ground. The fact that injury was only skin deep is not of much help to the accused as sometimes due to low velocity of cartridge heaving very old gun powder, the pellets touch the skin, do not pierce in body and fall on the ground. It does not suggest that the accused had no intention or knowledge of the act of crime committed by him. So, the contention of the learned Senior counsel that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out is repelled. 25. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel contended that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence in case of Virender Singh-appellant. He has already undergone two months and ten days imprisonment; that he has faced agony of this criminal case for about 17 years; that he has to lose his job of secretaryship of the Co-operative Society and that he is the only bread-earner of his family consisting of a wife, two grown-up children and never residing with him. 26. The accused entered the house of the injured with pistol with an intention to eliminate him at night time, fired at him with illegal weapon, which hit on the vital parts of the body. It was timely medical aid, which saved the injured. Learned counsel has proved compromise of even date on the letter pad of the Gram Panchayat, Kakrali, arrived at between the parties. It has been held in "State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak" 2014(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 202 : 2014(5) Recent Apex Judgment 263, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is a serious offence and cannot be allowed to be compounded under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the same reads as under :-- "After examining the facts of this case and the medical record, we are of the opinion that it was not a case where High Court should have quashed the proceedings in exercise of its discretion under Section 482 of the Code. We may, at the outset, refer to the judgment of this Court in Gulabdas & Ors. v. State of M.P., 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 220 : 2011 (6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 381: 2011 (12) Scale 625 wherein following view was taken :-- "7. We may, at the outset, refer to the judgment of this Court in Gulabdas & Ors. v. State of M.P., 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 220 : 2011 (6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 381: 2011 (12) Scale 625 wherein following view was taken :-- "7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the only question that falls for determination is whether the prayer for composition of the offence under Section 307 IPC could be allowed having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Our answer is in the negative. This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ram Lal & Anr. v. State of J&K, 2000 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 92 : (1992) SCC 213 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1:2008 (6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 471 : (2008) 15 SCC 667 . We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permission to compound the offence for which Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 stand convicted". 27. The accused appears to be so influential person and successfully moulded the investigation of this case towards an innocent person- Devender @ Gorkhi, and tried to put criminal liability of this assault on him by showing him as the main accused. Not only this, he was involved in false case of recovery of countrymade pistol, in which he was acquitted. This Court had to interfere in the investigation of the case by deputing the Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation. So, the alleged compromise is not considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of appellant-Virender Singh. This Court has considered these submissions and find that the order of sentence passed by the trial Court is proportionate to the crime committed by the accused. 28. Keeping in view the above discussion, the Criminal Appeal No. S-1022-SB of 2003, titled as "Devender Singh @ Gorkhi v. State of Haryana " is allowed' conviction and sentence of De-vender Singh @ Gorkhi, is set aside, appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi is acquitted of the charge framed against him. 29. 28. Keeping in view the above discussion, the Criminal Appeal No. S-1022-SB of 2003, titled as "Devender Singh @ Gorkhi v. State of Haryana " is allowed' conviction and sentence of De-vender Singh @ Gorkhi, is set aside, appellant-Devender @ Gorkhi is acquitted of the charge framed against him. 29. However, Criminal Appeal No. S-192-SB of 2003, titled as "Virender Singh v. State of Haryana " is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed qua appellant-Virender Singh. He is directed to surrender to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The judgment dated 17.12.2002/19.12.2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court-II, Faridabad is modified as stated above.