JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—In the revised list, Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the appellants is present alongwith Sri Sangam Lal Kesherwani, learned AGA for the respondent State. Sri L.V. Singh, learned counsel representing the informant however is not present. The appeal was filed in the year 1982 and thirty three years have gone by and therefore, cannot be kept pending without final disposal for an indefinite period. In view of aforesaid, the appeal has been heard finally. 2. At the very outset Sri Saran, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that so far as appellant No. 5 Dashrath Singh is concerned, he is already dead. There is a report in that respect exist on the record sent by C.J.M., Etah dated 19.3.2004, which is Flag “B” on the record of the appeal. In view of aforesaid, this appeal in respect of appellant No. 5 Dashrath Singh stands abated. 3. This appeal by five appellants Dhanpal, Ravindra Singh, Brijpal Singh, Jagvir Singh and Dashrath Singh is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.1982 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in S.T. No. 465 of 1980, State v. Dhanpal and others, by which, all the appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 307/149 IPC and were sentenced to serve one year R.I. for the former charge and seven years R.I. for the later. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Judge. Appellant No. 5 Dashrath Singh is the father of appellant No. 1 Dhanpal. 4. Prosecution case as was inked during the written F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-1 by informant Laljeet Singh with Dr. Bhanu Pal Singh Rathore being the scribe and the version later on was testified during concerned Sessions trial by the three fact witnesses Laljeet Singh informant P.W.1, Gajraj Singh, P.W.2 and Lal Bahadur Singh P.W.3 were that on 20.6.1980 at 5 p.m. when informant and injured Gajraj Singh were lifting mud from the village pond and carrying it to their houses, all the five appellants, out of whom appellant No. 1 Dhanpal Singh and Appellant No. 3 Brijpal Singh, both armed with S.B.B.L guns, appellant No. 2 Ravindra Singh armed with D.B.B.L. Gun, appellant No. 4 Jagvir Singh and demised appellant No. 5 Dashrath Singh, both armed with country made pistols, had approached the informant and Gajraj Singh. Dhanpal Singh A-1 accosted Gajraj Singh demanding his irrigation charges. Dhanpal Singh A-1 accosted Gajraj Singh demanding his irrigation charges. Gajraj Singh retorted by saying that he has already paid those charges and both of them engaged themselves in vetuperization. Meanwhile, Jagdish Singh, Ram Narain Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh and many other co-villagers arrived at the incident scene. No sooner their arrival, thereof the appellants Dhanpal Singh, Ravindra Singh and Brij Pal Singh fired on the prosecution side from their respective fire-arms causing injuries to the informant Gajraj Singh, Dwarika Singh and others. Gun shots sound attracted women folk and the children of the house towards the incident scene, who sprinted towards it. Accused while escaping fired at the inmates also causing injuries to the women folk and children as well. This incident was witnessed by the already present villagers. In all thirteen people had sustained fire-arm injuries in the incident which include Laljeet Singh (informant P.W.1), Gulab Singh, Shiv Bahadur Singh, Smt. Munni Devi, Jaipal Singh, Ram Babu, Shanti Devi, Gudiya, Guddi, Dwarika Singh, Ram Lalli, Bhoorey and Gajraj Singh (P.W.2). Accused thereafter made their escape good from the incident spot. 5. F.I.R. of the incident was got described by the informant (P.W.1), Laljeet Singh through Dr. Bhanu Pal Singh Rathore and then measured the distance of three miles to the police station, Aliganj, District Etah and arriving there at 8.30. p.m.(wrongly mentioned in the Chik F.I.R. as a.m.) got it registered as crime No. 271 of 1980, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC. Constable clerk Jai Pal Singh registered the crime and recorded Chik No. 119 at 8.30 p.m. Chik F.I.R. is Exhibit Ka-28 and G.D. entry of crime registration is Exhibit Ka-29. S.I. Shiv Kumar Singh Chandel P.W.5 commenced investigation into the crime, recorded statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan Exhibit Ka-3, recovered blood stained attires of the injured, which are material Exhibits 9 to 15 and slated recovery memo thereof Exhibit Ka-31 to Ka-36. House of the assailants were searched and recovery memo thereof is Exhibit Ka-37. Wrapping up of the investigation, I.O. charge-sheeted the accused vide Exhibit Ka-38. 6. All the injured persons were examined by Dr. Daya Shanker P.W.4 on the date of the incident itself. According to doctor injured had sustained following injuries: Injuries of Lal Jeet Singh “(1) Fire arm wound of pallet entry parital region 0.2cm x 0.2cm 6 cm above (R) ear. 6. All the injured persons were examined by Dr. Daya Shanker P.W.4 on the date of the incident itself. According to doctor injured had sustained following injuries: Injuries of Lal Jeet Singh “(1) Fire arm wound of pallet entry parital region 0.2cm x 0.2cm 6 cm above (R) ear. (2) Two fire-arm wound of pallet entry (L) side neck each 0.2cm x 0.2cm 5cm apart. (3) Three fire-arm wound of pallet entry (L) side chest upper part each 0.2cm x 0.2cm in an area of 7cm x 6cm. (4) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) hand 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Gulab Singh (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) shoulder 0.2cm x 0.2cm. (2) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry inguinal region 0.2cm x 0.2cm. (3) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) leg part 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Shiv Bahadur Singh (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) parietal region 0.2cm x 0.2cm 4cm above (R) ear. Injuries of Smt. Munni Devi (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry 0.2cm x 0.2cm (L) wrist dorsal side. Injuries of Jaipal Singh (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) leg 0.2cm x 0.2cm Injuries of Ram Babu (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) ear lobule 0.2cm 0.2cm x through and through (wound of exit is also therein). (2) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) leg front side middle 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Smt. Shanti Devi (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) breast 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Km. Gudia (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (L) cheek 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Km. Guddi (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) upper chest 0.2cm x 0.2cm. (2) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) lower part leg front side 0.2cm x 0.2cm. (3) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) thigh front side 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Dwarika Singh (1) Fire-arm wounds of pallet entry (2) (R) upper chest 0.2cm x 0.2cm ear 7cm apart. (2) Fire-arm wounds of pallet entry (R) sub costal region 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Smt. Ram Lali (1) Fire-arm pallet wound of entry (L) breast 0.2cm x 0.2cm x muscle deep. (2) Two fire-arm pallet wounds of entry (R) forearm each 0.2cm x 0.2cm and 5cm apart. (3) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) knee outer side 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Smt. Ram Lali (1) Fire-arm pallet wound of entry (L) breast 0.2cm x 0.2cm x muscle deep. (2) Two fire-arm pallet wounds of entry (R) forearm each 0.2cm x 0.2cm and 5cm apart. (3) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (R) knee outer side 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Bhoorey (1) Circular wound of fire-arm pallet entry (L) upper eyelid 0.2cm x 0.2cm x muscle deep. (2) Two fire-arm pallets wounds of entry front of chest upper part each 0.2cm x 0.2cm and 4cm apart x muscle deep. (3) Fire-arm pallet wound of entry (L) forearm 0.2cm x 0.2cm x muscle deep. (4) Fire-arm pallet wound of entry supra pubic region (R) side 0.2cm x 0.2cm x muscle deep. (5) Fire-arm pallet wound of entry (L) thigh front side 0.2cm x 0.2cm. Injuries of Gajraj Singh (1) Fire-arm wound of pallet entry (L) side neck 0.2cm x 0.2cm.” On the strength of the aforementioned charge-sheet, accused were summoned and since disclosed offence were triable by Sessions Court, their case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where learned trial Judge charged them with offence under Sections 148 and 307/149 IPC on 30.11.1981. All the accused after being read over and explained charges, denied the same and claim to be tried. Resultantly, to establish their guilt, prosecution commenced. 7. In the trial prosecution examined three fact witnesses informant injured Laljeet Singh P.W.1, Gajraj Singh P.W.2 and Lal Bahadur Singh P.W.3. Rest of the fromal witnesses included Dr. Daya Shanker P.W.4, S.I. Shiv Kumar Singh P.W.5. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused appellant took usual defence of false implication and also came out with a different version altogether that no incident had occurred at or near the pond and S.I. Balram Singh Solanki is a relative of the informant and with his conspiracy and connivance that all appellants have been falsely implicated. This defence has been stated by Dhanpal Singh appellant No. 1 in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement. This defence has been stated by Dhanpal Singh appellant No. 1 in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah after vetting through the prosecution evidences, oral and documentary, and after cogitating over it came to the conclusion that prosecution successfully anointed guilt of the accused and the charges under Sections 148 and 307/34 IPC have been established beyond any shadow of doubt and, therefore, convicted appellants vide impugned judgment and order of conviction for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as has already been recorded in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 8. Challenge in this appeal is to the aforesaid conviction and sentence by the appellants. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that appeal of appellant No. 5 Dashrath Singh already stands abated. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, I have heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the appellants, Dhanpal Singh, Ravindra Singh, Brijpal Singh and Jagvir Singh and have also heard Sri Sangam Lal Kesarwani, learned AGA for the State. Counsel for the appellants vehemently and incisively urged that the prosecution has not been able to anoint guilt of the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and the findings of the learned trial Judge is not in consonance with the evidences on the record. It is next urged that accepting the prosecution version as it is only offence under Section 324 IPC is established and no offence under Section 307 IPC is proved nor existence of an unlawful assembly for committing attempt to murder is proved. An incident of dacoity was transferred into an incident of attempt to murder implicating the appellants falsely. Learned counsel further submitted that none of the fact witnesses are trustworthy,reliable and creditworthy and there are inconsistencies, embellishments and exaggerations in the eye-witness account decimating entire prosecution edifice. Wrapping up his submissions, it is contended that, in case the appellants are not granted clean acquittal, they should be set at liberty by sentencing them to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them as more than 33 years have gone by since the incident had occurred and, therefore, to send the appellants to jail at this belated stage will not serve the cause of justice. Learned counsel articulating his submissions further contended that Dhanpal as on date is 70 years of age and Brijpal Singh is 72 years of age and both of them being septuagenarian, to send them in penitentiary at this belated stage will not be just and desirable. 9. Learned AGA contending to the contrary refuted all the submissions and urged that there is nothing in the evidences of the fact witnesses, which can make them unreliable and untrustworthy witnesses therefore, prosecution has successfully anointed guilt of the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is next urged that there is no reason for this Court to mollify the sentence and palliate the offences further. It is further submitted that appellants had caused injuries even to the women folk and children and, therefore, they do not deserve any sympathetic consideration respecting their sentences. 10. I have pondered over rival submissions and scanned the record carefully. At the very outset it would but be appropriate to consider the first harangued submission for the appellants that in any view of the matter crime of appellants will not travel beyond the purview of Section 324 IPC and therefore their conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. is unsustainable. There is much force in the said argument raised by appellant’s counsel. On the said aspect the very first versions which saw the light of the day through FIR Exhibit Ka-1 makes it evident that the incident had occurred all of a sudden preceded by verbal duel, hot exchange of words and hurling of abuses by both the sides on demand of irrigation charges. Since prior to the incident there was no hostility between the parties and there is no evidence to that effect. F.I.R. version itself records that on the incident day at 5.30 p.m., when the accused appellants demanded irrigation charges, which, the prosecution sides replied to have paid, that both the side engaged themselves in verbal duel followed by abusing words and in the midst of it, all of a sudden, three of the appellants opened fires. Rest of the two did not shot at this point of time and consequently till this stage there was no unlawful assembly into being with common object to commit attempt to murder. Rest of the two did not shot at this point of time and consequently till this stage there was no unlawful assembly into being with common object to commit attempt to murder. In this shooting spree only simple injuries were caused to the prosecution side and therefore it could not be concluded that each and every appellant definitely possessed a common object to commit murder by forming an unlawful assembly. In fact going through the evidences of the fact witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3, searchingly, they have also testified above version during the trial and at no stage it transpired that there was an unlawful assembly in existence with common object of committing attempt to murder. In such a view, the individual accused has to be judged for his own independent act as from the facts slated herein above it is also established that there was no common intention also amongst the accused appellants. Perusal of the injury reports of all the injured does not indicate that any of the thirteen injured had sustained any grievous hurt at all. Their injury reports, unerringly depicts that all of them had sustained simple fire-arm injuries and none of their injuries were grievous in nature and hence it is difficult to bring the crime within the fold of Section 307 IPC. It is also because except appellant Dhanpal no other accused is alleged to have repeated the shots. It is therefore unsafe to believe that all the appellants had clear common object to commit murder. In my view, taking the prosecution evidences and believing it as it is, the crime will only be of causing simple hurt with fire-arms within the ambit of Section 324 IPC. This view is also fortified because two of the appellants Jagvir and Dashrath, appellants No. 4 & 5 fired only while escaping from the scene of the incident in an attempt to make their escape good and they cannot be brought within the mischief of Section 307 I.P.C. From the depositions of the fact witnesses, it does not transpire that any point of time these appellants had common object to commit attempt to murder. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find that so far as guilt of the appellants are concerned it will not travel beyond the scope of Section 324 IPC. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find that so far as guilt of the appellants are concerned it will not travel beyond the scope of Section 324 IPC. There was no enmity with the ladies and the children and there was no reason or causa causans (immediate motive) for the appellants to indulge into the crime with positive motive to annihilate the injured persons. In view of aforesaid discussion, conviction of the appellants under Sections 307/149 IPC is unsustainable and prosecution has only successfully proved the guilt of the appellants under Sections 324 IPC as each of the accused caused simple fire arm injuries to the prosecution side. 11. Coming to other contentions submitted by appellant’s counsel, I do not find any merit in those submissions at all do not require any detailed and extensive deliberations at all, as time, place and the date of the incident all are admitted and presence of injured eye-witnesses at the scene of the incident with fire arm injuries cannot be doubted. It will be naive to accept that they will spare real assailants and implicate innocent persons without any previous enmity or ill motive. In their 313 statement their defence of false implication due to a SI of police is thoughtless and uncalled for defence and very surprisingly, during cross-examination of witnesses no background facts were asked. Such a plea without flashback of preceding circumstances is worthless and on it’s basis otherwise credible evidence of injured witnesses cannot be discarded and rejected. I find the said defence wholly puerile which does not held any water. Why prosecution witnesses will be implicate appellant’s falsely with the help of S.I., alleged to be the relative of the informant, has not been stated under 313 of the Code and above all without lying the foundation for such a plea, a mere statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is of no value and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution story as was developed during the trial is credible and reliable and cannot be discarded or thrown over board. 12. Coming to the sentence, incident occurred thirty three years ago. Section 324 I.P.C is punishable maximum with three years of imprisonment. Appellants had already served near about two months of imprisonment. At the time when the incident was committed appellants were in prime youth now two of the appellant Dhanpal and Brijpal Singh are septuagenarian. 12. Coming to the sentence, incident occurred thirty three years ago. Section 324 I.P.C is punishable maximum with three years of imprisonment. Appellants had already served near about two months of imprisonment. At the time when the incident was committed appellants were in prime youth now two of the appellant Dhanpal and Brijpal Singh are septuagenarian. They are 70 and 72 years of age respectively. Rest of the two appellants are 51 and 53 years of age. Sri Saran, learned counsel for the appellants, arguendo had brought to the notice that a compromise had also entered into between the parties but some of the injured had not accepted it while others had accepted it, when that was send for verification before the lower Court. In support of his contention he has relied upon some of the judgments by the Apex Court viz; R. Seetharam v. State of Karnataka, 2002 SCC (Crl) 127 and Ram Ekbal Upadhya and othes v. State of Bihar, (2001) 10 SCC 233 . I have perused those judgments but they do not apply on the facts of the present appeal but at the same time I am of the opinion that parties must have settled down in lives, therefore, I consider it appropriate to scale down their sentences. 13. In my view, looking to overall facts and circumstances, one year imprisonment with Rs. 20,000/- fine to each of the appellants, with Rs. 50000/= compensation to the victims in equal denomination will serve the interest of justice and the purpose. In view of aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellants under Section 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. IPC are hereby set aside and instead they are convicted under Section 324 IPC. Each of the appellants for the aforesaid crime is sentenced to one year R.I. with Rs. 20,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine to serve additional six months R.I. If the fine is paid compensation as above shall be disbursed to the victims or their heirs in equal shares. Appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith, failing which learned trial Court is directed to take them in custody and send them to jail to serve out remaining part of their sentence. Benefit of set of is also accorded to the appellants. Appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith, failing which learned trial Court is directed to take them in custody and send them to jail to serve out remaining part of their sentence. Benefit of set of is also accorded to the appellants. Let a copy of the judgment be certified to the learned trial Court for it’s intimation.