JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) A complaint was written by Sahab Singh (PW1) against the accused on 20.07.1998, enumerating the facts contained therein, that he went to the market on 19.07.1998. His co-villager Kishan Singh met him in the Bangwal market. He hurled abuses at him. He also assaulted PW1 with a stone, as a consequence of which, he sustained injuries. Accused fled away after causing him injuries. The witnesses saw the incident, whereafter, PW1 returned to his house. Accused threatened him with dire consequences. He also fired upon the PW1’s brother Vijay Pal Singh (PW2), as a consequence of which, he too sustained injuries on his head and nose. PW2 was taken to a hospital in an unconscious state. The chik FIR was lodged on 20.07.1998, on the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-1). After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for the offenses punishable under Sections 307, 325, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, and 504 of IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Sahab Singh, PW2 Vijay Pal Singh, PW3 Mahendra Singh, PW4 Sabal Singh, PW5 Dr. Y.S.Rana, PW6 Mor Singh, PW7 Dr. Hem Chandra Joshi and PW8 Mohan Singh Rana (patwari) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. 3. After considering the evidence on record, accused-appellant Kishan Singh was acquitted of the charge of the offence under Section 504 IPC. He was, however, convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC. Accused-appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He was directed to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Aggrieved against the impugned order (of conviction) dated 18.04.2003, present criminal appeal was preferred by the accused-appellant. 4. PW1, in his examination-in-chief, said that the criminal law was set into motion by lodging a complaint (Ext. He was directed to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Aggrieved against the impugned order (of conviction) dated 18.04.2003, present criminal appeal was preferred by the accused-appellant. 4. PW1, in his examination-in-chief, said that the criminal law was set into motion by lodging a complaint (Ext. Ka-1), which was addressed to patwari chowki, Kawgarhi, on the basis of which, the chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5) was registered against the accused-appellant. In his examination-in-chief, he supported the prosecution story, a brief reference of which has already been mentioned in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. 5. PW2 was the injured-eye witness, who also supported the prosecution story and said that the accused Kishan Singh fired upon him, as a consequence of which, he sustained injuries on his head and nose. He became unconscious and thereafter he was referred to Dehradun hospital in an unconscious state. He remained admitted there for about 1½ months. The incident took place on 19.07.1998, at 7:00 pm. 6. PW3 was an eyewitness, who saw the incident on 19.07.1998. He also identified the accused in the trial court. He stated that he saw blood stains on the head of Sahab Singh (PW1), but he did not see the accused inflicting the injuries on the head of PW1. Since PW3 did not support the prosecution story in toto, therefore, he was declared hostile. 7. PW4 Sabbal Singh also did not support the prosecution story in toto and was declared hostile. A description of the evidence of PW4 will be given in one of the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment. 8. According to PW6, Sahab Singh informed him that he was assaulted by the accused-appellant Kisan Singh. PW 6 found blood stains on the place of incident. 9. PW5 Dr. Y.S.Rana, conducted x-ray of the head and left elbow of Vijay Pal Singh and submitted his report (Ext. Ka-2). The same was referred to him by PW7 and he (PW5) submitted his report on the basis of x-ray of head and elbow of Vijay Pal Singh. 10. PW7 Dr. Hem Chandra Joshi examined the injuries of Vijay Pal Singh and Sahab Singh on 20.07.1998, at 8:20 am and 10:20 am respectively. He (Medical Officer) found a lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm into brain deep on right side forehead, 4 cm above the right eyebrow of Vijay Pal Singh. 10. PW7 Dr. Hem Chandra Joshi examined the injuries of Vijay Pal Singh and Sahab Singh on 20.07.1998, at 8:20 am and 10:20 am respectively. He (Medical Officer) found a lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm into brain deep on right side forehead, 4 cm above the right eyebrow of Vijay Pal Singh. Blood was oozing and underlying bone was fractured. Brain matter was seen coming out. No blackening or tattooing was present. Lacerated wound was also found on the back of head, which was 1 cm x 1 cm into scalp deep in occipital region. Contusions were also found on upper eyelid. He also found lacerated wound 1.8 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on the lower part of arm and at left elbow of Vijay Pal Singh. Patient was unconscious. He was referred to Surgeon of District Hospital, Uttarkashi for management. Injuries on head and arm were kept under preservation. PW 7 proved the injury report of Vijay Pal Singh as Ext. Ka-3. 11. PW7 also examined the injuries of Sahab Singh on the same day, i.e., 20.07.1998. He found lacerated 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm. on the middle and left side of the head. The Medical Officer also found lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the back of head at left side 9 cm above occipital protuberance. Lacerated wound was also found at upper lip. All the injuries were caused by the blunt object. Injuries no. 1 & 2 were on the head and were kept under observation. Rest of the injuries were simple in nature. PW 7 proved the injury report of Sahab Singh as Ext. Ka-4. 12. PW8 Mohan Singh Rana (patwari) proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5), which was lodged on the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-1). Entry of the same was made in G.D. (Ext. Ka-6). He took the statement of the informant, other witnesses, visited the place of incident, prepared the site plan and after being satisfied that the accused-appellant committed the crime, submitted the charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-7) against the accused-appellant. PW 8 also proved site plan (Ext. Ka-8) and recovery memo (Ext. Ka-9). 13. When PW1 was cross-examined, he stated that he went to Bhangul village market all alone. He did not see his brother Kripal Singh in the village. He did not meet him there either. Accused abused him at 04:30 pm. PW 8 also proved site plan (Ext. Ka-8) and recovery memo (Ext. Ka-9). 13. When PW1 was cross-examined, he stated that he went to Bhangul village market all alone. He did not see his brother Kripal Singh in the village. He did not meet him there either. Accused abused him at 04:30 pm. His house was situated at a distance of half a kilometer from the place where Vijay Pal Singh sustained injuries. The house of accused Kishan Singh was situated at a distance of 100 yards from the place of incident. PW1 proceeded from Bankot to Uttarkashi. He boarded on a Commander Jeep from Kala Dhunga. He reached Uttarkashi at 09:00-10:00 am. The Government Hospital was situated at a distance of 4 kms from his village Bankot. His brother Vijay Pal was admitted in Uttarakashi hospital at 10:00 am. Patwari also accompanied him in Commander Jeep to Uttarkash hospital. His brother Vijay Pal remained unconscious in Uttarkashi hospital. He was referred to Dehradun. He regained consciousness only after a week at Dehradun. Patwari went to the place of incident alongwith Kripal Singh. PW1 reached at the place of incident within half a second of the commission of the crime. His brother was lying unconscious. The accused did not fire upon PW1. Injured Vijay Pal sustained injury at three places on his body. He also stated in his cross-examination that the name of any witness was not mentioned in Ext. Ka-1 (complaint). He denied various suggestions put forward on behalf of accused in his cross-examination. He also denied that a false FIR was lodged against the accused on the ground of enmity with him. 14. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated that it was dark when the incident took place, but he could recognize the assailant in the light of pinewood stick. When he returned from Dehradun, Patwari enquired about the incident. PW2 disclosed to the patwari that Kishan Singh fired upon him. The house of Kishan Singh was situated near the place of incident. He was fired upon from a distance of 20-30 feet. The accused fired from a double barrel gun. He denied many a suggestions put forward by learned counsel for the accused in his cross-examination. He also denied previous enmity with the accused. 15. The house of Kishan Singh was situated near the place of incident. He was fired upon from a distance of 20-30 feet. The accused fired from a double barrel gun. He denied many a suggestions put forward by learned counsel for the accused in his cross-examination. He also denied previous enmity with the accused. 15. PW3 stated that on 19.07.1998, between 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm, when he was sitting in his shop, he saw that an altercation took place between Sahab Singh and the accused. After sometime, PW3 saw that Sahab Singh’s head was bleeding. He could not see as to who inflicted the blow of stone on the head of Sahab Singh. In the cross-examination, he stated that both Sahab Singh and Kripal Singh came to his shop together. 16. PW4 stated that the incident took place about a years ago (from the date of his deposition) at 11:00-12:00 pm in the night. He was sleeping in his home. He heard sound of fire. He went outside and saw that Sahab Singh, Vijay Pal and Kripal were there in front of his house. When PW4 inquired from them as to where they were going, they replied that they were going to search out Kishan Singh, son of Shyam Singh. They inquired the whereabouts of Kishan Singh from PW4, to which PW4 asked them to come in the morning. They went to their respective houses. Thereafter PW4 was declared hostile. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Vijay Pal sustained injuries on head. He was unconscious. He was lifted by PW4, Sahab Singh, Vinod Singh & Gajendra Singh and was taken to his home. On further cross-examination, on behalf of the accused, PW4 admitted that he saw bleeding on the head of Vijay Pal. Vijay Pal was taken to his residence by Sahab Singh. Vijay Pal, Kripal Singh and Kishan Singh were in inebriated state when they came to the courtyard of PW4. 17. The incident took place on 19.07.1998, at 11:00 pm. The first information report was lodged on 20.07.1998 at 6:00 am. The distance between the place of incident and the police station concerned was 1-1½ kilometers. Thus there appears to be no delay in lodging the first information report. 18. Accused was named in the first information report. 17. The incident took place on 19.07.1998, at 11:00 pm. The first information report was lodged on 20.07.1998 at 6:00 am. The distance between the place of incident and the police station concerned was 1-1½ kilometers. Thus there appears to be no delay in lodging the first information report. 18. Accused was named in the first information report. According to the complainant, the accused hurled abuses at the informant, assaulted him, pelted stones on him, as a consequence of which, he sustained injuries. Accused-appellant threatened the informant with dire consequences. When the informant went back to his home, the accused came with a gun and fired upon Vijay Pal Singh, informant’s brother. Informant’s brother sustained injuries on his head and hand. He was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state. Thereafter, the complaint was given by the informant in Patwari Chowki, Kawagarhi and that is how the criminal law was set into motion against the accused-appellant. PW1 and PW2 have supported the prosecution story. They were also cross-examined, but nothing came in their cross-examination to suggest that they were telling a lie or that the accused-applicant was implicated falsely on account of some enmity with him. A brief reference of the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 has already been given in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. 19. PW3 and PW4 have also lent assurance to the prosecution story, even if they did not support a part of it in their examination-in-chief. Certain statements have come in the cross-examination of PW and PW4, which were in support of the prosecution story. In other words, they supported the prosecution story in part and when they were cross-examined, they could not ignore the said story altogether. Thus the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is supported by the evidence of PW3 and PW4. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that PW3 and PW4 did not support the prosecution story, the fact remains that PW1 and PW2 have satisfactorily proved the prosecution story and the prosecution story could be proved on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 alone, inasmuch as, the same is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW5 and PW7. PW7 examined the injuries of Vijay Pal Singh and Sahab Singh and also proved their injury reports, a reference of which has also been given in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. PW7 examined the injuries of Vijay Pal Singh and Sahab Singh and also proved their injury reports, a reference of which has also been given in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. PW8 was a formal witness. 20. PW1 and PW2 were the real brothers. Law enjoins upon the courts to tread cautiously in respect of the evidence of related witnesses. The Law does not say that the testimony of related witnesses should be discarded altogether. It only says that the evidence of such witnesses should be treated with vengeance. Judging from this yardstick, there is nothing in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 to indicate that their oral evidence should not be believed or accepted. 21. The prosecution, in the estimation of this Court, was able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 22. This Court has also perused the judgment of the Trial Court. It is a well discussed judgment. Care has been taken by the Trial Court to see that every aspect of the incident is covered. It is a well discussed, elaborate and well-reasoned judgment. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC are proved against the appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. As discussed, this Court has independently assessed the prosecution story to arrive at the same conclusion, which was arrived at by the Trial Court (Learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi). This Court is unable to take a view different from what was taken by the Trial Court. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 23. Criminal Appeal filed by the accused-appellant is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court and thus affirmed by this Court. 24. Let a copy of this Judgment along with lower court record be sent to the Court below for compliance.