JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. Both the aforesaid appeals are arising out of the same judgment passed by Trial Court, therefore, they are being decided together by this common order. 2. Both the accused appellants - Smt. Chiddi and Gurtej Singh have filed two separate appeals assailing the judgment dated 18.2.1992 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in sessions case No. 33/1990 whereby learned Sessions Judge has convicted Smt. Chiddi for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 100 as well as rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 100 respectively and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused appellant Gurtej Singh was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and has been punished to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 3. Facts in brief are that one Gurdas Singh Jot his 'parcha bayan' recorded on 31.12.1988 mentioning that his married sister Chiddi is living with one Gurtej Singh at his village. One raising objection against her illicit relations; both of them came to the house of Gurdas Singh and Chiddi fired a bullent through a 12 bore pistol at Jagtar Singh, which hit his knee. At that time, Jeet Singh, Sewa Singh and Jagtar Singh were also there. Gurtej Singh fired through 12 bore gun with the intention to murder them. Jeet Singh got injured on his left arm, Sewa Singh got injured on right arm and Gurdas Singh got the bullet injuries on his left knee. On the basis of this 'parcha bayan' F.I.R. was registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act against the accused appellants. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused Smt. Chiddi and Gurtej Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act. 5. After hearing charge arguments, charges were framed against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. and Smt. Chiddi was additionally charged for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 5. After hearing charge arguments, charges were framed against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. and Smt. Chiddi was additionally charged for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 6. The prosecution got 11 witnesses examined. Statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and no witness was examined by the defence side. 7. After hearing arguments and taking the evidence into consideration, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants as mentioned above. 8. The impugned judgment dated 18.2.1992 has been assailed by both the accused appellants while separately filing these appeals on the ground that the prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses. It has been alleged that on the spot, Gurdayal Singh and Harbans Kaur were also present at the time of occurrence but they have not been examined. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are close relatives and have got inimical relations with Smt. Chiddi and Gurtej Singh on account of their illicit relations. The prosecution has falsely implicated the accused appellants because of this enmity. There is no truth in the prosecution story, thus, the conviction held by learned Trial Court be set aside. 9. Both the Counsels appearing on behalf of accused appellants have strongly argued that no injury is alleged to have been caused on any vital part of the body of any of the injured persons. Had there been any intention to commit murder, the accused appellants should have fired on some vital part of bodies of the injured persons, which goes to show that there was no intention of the accused appellants to cause death of the complainant and his fellows. 10. As regards the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act qua Smt. Chiddi is concerned, learned Counsel for the accused appellant Chiddi submits that no sanction issued by the District Magistrate has been produced by the prosecution side as required under the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act, therefore, she cannot be convicted for the aforesaid offence. In the alternative, he has also argued that even if the conviction is upheld, the incident being 27 years old, accused appellant Smt. Chiddi is now about 66 years of age and Gurtej Singh is about 64 years of age. In the alternative, he has also argued that even if the conviction is upheld, the incident being 27 years old, accused appellant Smt. Chiddi is now about 66 years of age and Gurtej Singh is about 64 years of age. Apart from suffering the mental agony and harassment of facing the trial and proceedings of appeal, they have undergone sentences for a period of about one month and 4 and ½ months respectively. Alternative argument advanced by both the Counsels is that in light of the above mentioned circumstances, it will not be in the interest of justice to send the accused appellants behind the bars, therefore, they pray that even if the judgment of conviction passed against them is not set aside, an order may be passed to release them on the period of undergone sentence. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this prayer and has submitted that by way of prosecution evidence, the charges have been clearly proved against both the accused appellants and non-production of independent witnesses cannot discard the prosecution story in to. The persons who have been injured in the occurrence have categorically proved the charges levelled against the accused appellants, which has been substantiated by the medical evidence also. Two independent witnesses Gurdayal Singh and Harbans Kaur, who could not be examined, are father and mother of injured Gurdas Singh. Had they been examined, there would have been an argument that they are interested witnesses. The enmity between the complainant and accused side, as argued by the defence Counsel, does not prove that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated but it clarifies the basic cause on account of which accused persons have fired and injured the complainant side. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that in view of all the attending circumstances and the gravity of the offence, accused appellants do not deserve any leniency. He has also argued that it is not a case wherein period of undergone sentence can be considered to be enough. Learned Public Prosecutor prays that both the appeals be rejected while maintaining the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. 13. In the light of the arguments advanced by both sides, I have gone through the entire evidence available on record. Learned Public Prosecutor prays that both the appeals be rejected while maintaining the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. 13. In the light of the arguments advanced by both sides, I have gone through the entire evidence available on record. As per the statements of PW-1 Gurdas Singh, PW 2 Jagtar Singh, PW-3 Sewa Singh, PW-4 Jeet Singh, who were present on the scene of occurrence and also got injured, it is clear that prior to the incident some discussion took place between the accused appellant Smt. Chiddi and the witnesses. Thereafter, Smt. Chiddi went away and came back along with Gurtej Singh. Accused appellant Smt. Chiddi was having a 12 bore pistol in her hand while accused appellant Gurtej Singh was having a 12 bore gun. Accused appellant Gurtej Singh, while giving 12 bore pistol to Smt. Chiddi, asked her to fire at the complaint and his other brothers, the, Smt. Chiddi fired by the pistol at Jagtar Singh, which hit him beneath the knees in both the legs. Accused appellant Gurtej Singh inflicted injuries through his 12 bore gun on right arm of PW-3 Sewa Singh, left arm of PW-4 Jeet Singh and on left arm of PW-1 Gurdas Singh. It is worthy to note that all the four injured witnesses have specifically mentioned about the similar injuries having been inflicted by accused Gurtej Singh and there is no discrepancy in their version. It is also worthy to note that PW-10 Dr. Kailash Nath Markenday - Medical Jurist who has examined these Injured witnesses has also found such injuries on their bodies, which have also been mentioned by him in the MLRs Ex.P-31 to Ex.P-34, prepared by him. During his cross-examination, he has assertively mentioned that these injuries have been caused by fire arms only. He has denied the suggestions that theses injuries can be self-inflicted. The fact regarding the injuries caused to these witnesses has also been affirmed by PW-8 Dr. Shanker Dev Aggarwal Radiologist, who has got the X-ray done and has also prepared X-ray reports Ex,P-21 to Ex.P-24. Perusal of X-ray report reveals that rounded opacity of metallic density was found with these injuries on various parts of the body of these injures person, for which the eye-witnesses have stated that the injury was caused by fire arm. PW-8 Dr. Perusal of X-ray report reveals that rounded opacity of metallic density was found with these injuries on various parts of the body of these injures person, for which the eye-witnesses have stated that the injury was caused by fire arm. PW-8 Dr. Shanker Dev Aggarwal has also stated that fracture was found on the cortex of tibia of right leg of Jagtar Singh. Similarly, fracture of ulna of left forearm was found on the body of Jeet Singh and fracture of humerus bone of Sewa Singh was observed by him but no bony injury was found on the body of Gurdas Singh. 14. It is thus, clear that when the ocular evidence is compared and analysed with the medical evidence, it is found that there is no discrepancy, which may create any doubt about the occurrence having taken place. The account of incident given by the prosecution witnesses is found to be trustworthy and it cannot be inferred that due to some enmity, the accused appellants are being falsely implicated by the complainant side. 15. It is true that no injury has been found on any vital part of the body of the injured persons Gurdas Singh, Jeet Singh, Sewa Singh and Jagtar Singh. It is also true that PW-8 Dr. Shanker Dev Aggarwal and PW 10 Dr. Kailash Nath Markenday have not stated in their statements that any of the injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the injured persons. As per the statement of complainant and the injured persons, it is clear that Smt. Chiddi fired only once on Jagtar Singh, which hit him beneath his knees on the legs. Nobody has mentioned that she missed the aim or she tried to fire upon any vital part of the body of Jagtar Singh. As per the prosecution story, the accused persons suddenly reached the place of occurrence and during the course of incident, the complainant side was not at all prepared to create any resistance, even then, Gurtej Singh and Smt. Chiddi did not aim at firing on any vital part of the body of injured persons nor did they fire again and again aiming at the same person. These circumstances go to show that the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for the accused appellants has got substance that there was no intention on the part of accused appellants to cause death of any of the injured persons, nor did they have any knowledge and intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 16. Taking into account these circumstances, it is found that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court for convicting the accused appellants for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not justified. It appears that the learned Trial Court has been guided by the fact that since injuries have been caused by the fire arm, the accused appellants are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. In doing so, learned Trial Court has incidentally ignored the fact that the accused appellants had also been charged with offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. The Trial Court has concluded that since the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., therefore, it is not required to punish them separately for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. but in view of circumstances mentions above, it appears that no knowledge and intention of the accused persons have come on record by way of prosecution evidence for which they could have been punishable for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. rather they should have been punished for offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. 17. In view of above discussions, I find that the conviction of both the accused appellants for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is liable to be converted to the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. 18. So far as the conviction imposed against the accused appellant Smt Chiddi for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act is concerned, learned Counsel for the accused appellant has argued that sanction as required under Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act has not been proved, hence Smt. Chiddi cannot be convicted for the said offence. 19. 19. But it is worth noting that previous sanction of the District Magistrate is required only in respect of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Indian Arms Act as referred in Section 39 of the Act, whereas in the matter in hand Smt Chiddi has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Relevant part of which reads as under:- "27. Punishment for using arms, etc.-(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine." Section 5 (i) of the Indian Arms Act, is as under:- "5. Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition.-(1) No person shall - (a) use, manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or (b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conviction, repair, test or proof any firearm or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition, unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder." 20. In my considered view, as the charge levelled against Smt. Chiddi is not in reference to Section 3 of the Indian Arms Act for which previous sanction is required under Section 39 of the Act, the contention of learned Counsel qua accused appellant Chiddi is not found tenable. The prosecution was required to prove that Smt. Chiddi was not holding a valid licence for 12 bore pistol, which she used in the occurrence. This fact is required to be proved as a sine qua non for punishing the accused for the offence under Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. In this regard, statement of Investigating Officer PW-7 Sri Mani Ram, SHO is relevant. On thorough scrutiny of his statement, it is found that he has nowhere stated that he enquired Smt. Chiddi about the licence of 12 bore pistol used by her or recovered from her possession on the information given by her under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. No other prosecution witness has stated anything about the enquiry being made from Smt. Chiddi regarding the licence of this pistol. No other prosecution witness has stated anything about the enquiry being made from Smt. Chiddi regarding the licence of this pistol. 21. Following judgments are relevant on this aspect that previous sanction of District Magistrate under the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act is necessary only with respect to the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Indian Arms Act and not with reference to Section 5 of the Indian Arms Act:- (1) Barendra Kumar Singha & Ors. v. State of Assam, reported in 1978 Cri.L.J. NOC 90 (2) Haridwar Rai v. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 Cri.L.J. 2651 (3) Laxchami Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 1416. 22. In absence of the proof that Smt. Chiddi was not holding a valid licence for the pistol used by her, she cannot be punished for the offence punishable under Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court, it is found that the Trial Court has not considered this aspect at all. Rather, no discussion about the prosecution evidence has been made by the Trial Court on this point in its judgment while holding Smt. Chiddi guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 23. In view of above, conviction of Smt. Chiddi as regards the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act is not legally tenable and is liable to be set aside and she is entitled to be acquitted for the said charge. 24. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, learned Counsels for the accused appellants have prayed that looking at the time gap and the accused laving grown old, their sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, in my opinion, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C., it does not seem appropriate that simply because there has been prolonged time gap, their sentence should be reduced to the period of already undergone. Accused appellants have caused injury to the complainant and other injured. Complainant and three others were injured by fire arm. This incident has taken place because the complainant side raised objection regarding the illicit relations between both the accused appellants. Accused appellants have caused injury to the complainant and other injured. Complainant and three others were injured by fire arm. This incident has taken place because the complainant side raised objection regarding the illicit relations between both the accused appellants. It is natural that the brothers will raise objection about their married sister, maintaining relations with the person other than her husband. Looking to the cause, which prompted this incident to happen and the way in which the incident took place, does not sound logical that the accused persons be released for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. just on the undergone period of sentence, which is merely one month to four and half month. 25. In view of above, conviction of accused appellant - Chiddi for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act is set aside and she is acquitted of the said charge. However, the conviction of both the accused appellants for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is converted to the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. Accused appellant Smt. Chiddi being a lady and having fired only once, her sentence is reduced from the period of three years rigorous imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she will have to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. As regards accused appellant Gurtej Singh, his sentence for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. is reduced from the period of five years to the period of one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo two month's simple imprisonment. The appeals filed by both the accused appellants are hereby partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for ensuring that both the accused appellants shall serve the remaining part of their sentences as per this order.