JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Trial No.72/1987 dated 11.10.1989 whereby the learned trial court has convicted the appellant Sheoram under Section 307 I.P.C. coupled with under Section 27 of Arms Act and convicted the appellant Jai Singh under Section 307/34 I.P.C. coupled with under Section 27 of the Arms Act each for 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 27 of Arms Act sentencing them for one year's R.I. 2. The facts of this appeal are that the complainant Harpatram PW-1 was returning to his Dhani after cultivating his field on 5.8.1987 at about 10:00–10:15, both Sheoram and Jaisingh were seen coming towards him. Sheo Ram from village side and Jai Singh from northern side, both were having pistols, Jai Singh fired at him which did not hit him because he fell down arisingly he started fleeing then Sheo Ram came from front side and fired at him, he sustained injuries on chest, stomach, arm and other parts and felt down. Pratap and Kashi Ram came to rescue on hearing cry and on their warning, the accused fled away and also fired while leaving. It has also been mentioned in the contents of FIR that both the accused were grudging enmity with complainant because he had given Rs.7600/- to Sheo Ram and on demand he declined. Sheo Ram had scuffled earlier also and a case had taken place, both are neighbours and out of enmity, both tried to murder me and have injured by shooting. This FIR was lodged on the basis of statement narrated by injured complainant Harpat on 5.8.1987. 3. During the investigation, site plan was prepared and blood stained cloths as well as soil samples were taken, weapons from both the accused were recovered at their information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and both the weapons as well as Kurta were sent for FSL and ballistic examination. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons and after committal of case and hearing arguments charges under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of Arms Act were framed against both the accused persons. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons and after committal of case and hearing arguments charges under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of Arms Act were framed against both the accused persons. The prosecution produced PW-1 Harpat, PW-2 Kashi Ram, PW-3 Pratap Singh, PW-4 Rameshwar, PW-5 Ramsingh, PW-6 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad, PW-7 Kashi Ram, PW-8 Harlal, PW-9 Bhanwar Singh and PW-10 Indra Chand and statement of accused were recorded. 5. Learned trial court thoroughly examined evidence and other material available on record including evidence of injured Harpat and two eye witnesses Kashi Ram and Pratap Singh. 6. Learned trial court considered the medical evidence, FSL report and ballistic report while recording its finding of guilt against the appellants and convicted the appellants. The accused Sheo Ram was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. coupled with Section 27 of Arms Act and Jai Singh under Section 307/34 I.P.C. coupled with Section 27 of Arms Act and sentence of 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- was awarded for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 27 of Arms Act and similar sentence was passed against both the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there was no blackening around the blood, so the distance stated from where the fire was shot is false which negates the story of prosecution. Both the eye witnesses are relatives of the complainant and there is no independent witness produced by the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution suffers from contradictions and has not properly been scrutinised and established position that the complainant was nurturing rivalry against the accused persons, so they have been wrongly implicated because of enmity. Pratap and Kashi Ram have been shown eye witness, but there is vital contradictions on the point of distance of fire and shooting of fire in the evidence of both the witnesses. The evidence produced by the prosecution is not clinching and guilt conclusion cannot be based on the prosecution evidence. 8. Pratap and Kashi Ram have been shown eye witness, but there is vital contradictions on the point of distance of fire and shooting of fire in the evidence of both the witnesses. The evidence produced by the prosecution is not clinching and guilt conclusion cannot be based on the prosecution evidence. 8. Relying upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Paramjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2013(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1999, the learned counsel has argued that the incident belongs to 5.8.1987 which goes back to around 29 years old and the accused persons have already incarcerated for a period of about 4 months and be released on undergone period of sentence. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that both the appellant accused persons fired on the complainant victim and have caused grievous fire arm injuries even the injury pierced lung a vital part of the body and by the mercy of almighty and timely treatment the complainant survived. The evidence of injured person is supported by testimony of two eye witnesses which is supported by medical evidence and FSL evidence regarding ballistic foundation indicating that the fires were shot from the recovered weapon, which were recovered on the instance of both the accused persons and the trial court has already passed a meager sentence of 3 years R.I. so there is no reason to interfere with the finding and sentence passed by the trial court and offence in the nature of attempt to murder is a heinous crime. They have only served custodial period of 4 months, which is very meager and the trial court has already passed sentence of 3 years which cannot be termed to be too high not worthy to be reduced. The appeal lacks merits so it be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and analysed the impugned judgment and scanned the evidence available on record of the case. 11. To analyse and to re-appreciate the evidence and the material, it is necessary to evaluate the conclusion recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment. Injured complainant Harpat Ram has narrated eye seen suffers version of the incident and has said that Jai Singh came from northern side having pistol in his hand and fired at me to kill me. Injured complainant Harpat Ram has narrated eye seen suffers version of the incident and has said that Jai Singh came from northern side having pistol in his hand and fired at me to kill me. I knelled down and escaped while I tried to flee away, Sheo Ram came from front and fired at me to kill me, bullet hit me on chest, stomach, right arm and I felt down. He has also said that blood had spilled there, when fire was shot, Kashi Ram and Pratap Singh came on the spot and on their alarm the accused persons fled away and fired twice while fleeing. He has specifically narrated that Sheo Ram and Jai Singh grudge enmity with him because he owe Rs.7600/- to Sheo Ram, nothing adverse has come out from the cross-examination of this victim witness. One vital version has also been stated by this witness by saying that a rape case was tried against him allegedly raping wife of Sheo Ram, in which he has been convicted, appeal of which is pending and he being enlarged on bail. One vital version has also been stated by this witness by saying that a rape case was tried against him allegedly raping wife of Sheo Ram, in which he has been convicted, appeal of which is pending and he being enlarged on bail. PW-2 Kashi Ram and eye witness has also stated that:- ^^vkt ls djhc 11 lk<+s X;kjg eghus igys dh ckr gSA eSa gjir dh <+k.kh ij Xokj ykus ds fy, x;k gqvk FkkA gjir dk HkkbZ izrki Hkh <+k.kh ij vk;k gqvk FkkA ge tc vk;s rks ml oDr gjir vius [ksr esa gy ckus x;k gqvk FkkA eSaus izrki ls iwNk fd gjir dgka gS fd mlus crk;k fd og vius [ksr esa ujek esa gy ck jgk gSA bl ij eSa gjir ds [ksr ij x;k vkSj gjir dks dgk fd eq>s Xokj rkSy dj ns nksA gjir us eq>s dgk fd vHkh jksVh [kkus <+k.kh ij vk jgk gwWa vkSj fQj eSa Xokj ns nwaxkA bl ij eSa okfil <+k.kh ij vk x;kA eSa vkSj izrki nksuksa gjir dh <+k.kh ds mRrjknsikl ge cSB x;sA fnu ds djhc 10] lok nl cts dk le; Fkk rks geus iwfy;k dh rjQ ls xksyh pyus dh vkokt vkbZ tks gels mRrjkfn rjQ gSA blfy, geus lkspk fd gjir dh ';ksjke o t;flag dh vkil esa [kqand pyrh gS dgha ';ksjke o t;flag us rks xksyh ugha ekj gjir ij ugha pyk nhA ge T;ksa gh iwfy;k dh rjQ Hkkxs geus ns[kk fd gjir viuh <+k.kh dh rjQ Hkkx jgk Fkk rFkk mlds ihNs t;flag Fkk geus vkokt nh ds ge vk jgs gSA geus ns[kk ';ksjke pqyh ds jkLrk ij iqfy;k ds utnhd Fkk vkSj gjir ds Bhd lkeus FkkA ';ksjke us fiLrksy ls gjir ij Qk;j fd;k ftldh xksyh gjir ds yxh vkSj xksyh yxrs gh gjir ml LFkku ij fxj x;kA gjir ml le; iqfy;k ds utnhd vkFkqu dh rjQ xksyh yxrs gh fxj x;kA ml oDr tc ';ksjke us gjir ij Qk;j fd;k og iqfy;k ds iwoZ dh rjQ dqN nwjh ij FkkA ;g iqfy;k pwyh ds jkLrs ij gSA gekjs yydkjus ij ;g viuh <+k.kh;ksa ij Hkkx x;sA t;flag ds gkFk esa fiLrksy FkhA eqyftekuksa us viuh <+k.kh dh rjQ Hkkxrs gq, Hkh ,d ,d vkSj Qk;j fd;kA ge nksuksa gjir ds ikl x;s mldks ge nksuksa us mBkdj mldh <+k.kh ij ys x;s ftl LFkku ij gjir ij xksyh yxus ij og fxj x;k FkkA ogka mldk [kwu Hkh fxjk FkkA mlds pksyk o /kksrh igu j[kh FkhA ftlds Hkh mlds [kwu yx x;k blds i'pkr~ gjir dks V~sDVj ij p<+kdj Hkknjk vLirky esa ykdj HkrhZ djok fn;kA** 12. The cross-examination of this witness has also remained un-controverted and nothing concrete has come to weaken the evidence of this witness. 13. The cross-examination of this witness has also remained un-controverted and nothing concrete has come to weaken the evidence of this witness. 13. Likewise PW-3 Pratap Singh is an eye witness who has narrated entire story of fire shots by the accused persons and injury sustained by the victim and others witnesses has said that:- ^^11 lk<+s X;kjg eghus igys dh ckr gSA eSa gjir dh <+k.kh esa bl ?kVuk ls ,d fnu igys dud ysus ds fy, esjs HkkbZ gjir ds ;gka vk;k gqvk FkkA okjnkr ls igys gjir dh <+k.kh esa dk'khjke Hkh vk x;k FkkA ge gjir dh <+k.kh ls mRrjk/kh rjQ cSBs Fks gqDdk ih jgs FksA gjir vius [ksr esa ujek esa gy pyk jgk FkkA gesa xksyh pyus dh vkokt lqukbZ nh FkhA ;g ckr fnu ds djhcu lok nl cts dh gSA fQj ge gjir dh vkSj iwy dh rjQ HkkxsA gjir <+k.kh dh rjQ nkSM+k gqvk vk jgk FkkA t;flag mlds ihNs 15&20 QqV nwj Fkk ftlds gkFk esa fiLrksy FkkA gjir ds lkeus dh rjQ ';ksjke Fkk ftlds ikl fiLrksy FkkA ge ';ksjke ls 7&8 ikaoMk nwj FksA rc mlus fiLrksy ls xksyh gjir dks ekj nhA ';ksjke us xksyh pwyh jkLrk dh rjQ ls pykbZA og xksyh gjir dks yxh] mlds flj o lkjs 'kjhj ij pksVsa vkbZA geus ';ksjke vkfn dks yydkjkA ';ksjke o t;flag nksuksa us Qk;j fd;k vkSj viuh <+k.kh dh rjQ Hkkx x;sA ';ksjke dh <+k.kh ekbZuj ls iwohZ rjQ gS vkSj t;flag dh <+k.kh ekbZuj ls if'pe dh rjQ gSA fQj ge gjir dks ?kVuk okyh txg ls mBk;k vkSj mldks <+k.kh ys x;sA tgka gjir fxjk Fkk ogka [kwu fxjk gqvk FkkA mlus lQsn dqrkZ iguk gqvk Fkk ftl ij [kwu yxk gqvk Fkk ftl ij fpUg cus gq, FksA mldks eSa vkSj dk'khjke gjir dks VSDVªj ij cSBdj Hkknjk ys vk;sA eqyfteku nksuksa gkftj vnkyr gSA iqfyl vLirky esa vkbZA iqfyl okjnkr okyh txg xbZ vkSj eq>s lkFk ys xbZA iqfyl us ekSds ij tkdj <+k.kh;ka oxSjk ns[kh vkSj ?kVuk okyh txg fxjk gqvk [kwu mBk;k vkSj ?kVuk dk uD'kk cuk;k uD'kk ekSds ij eSaus nLr[r fd;sA esjs vykok tks gktjh t;flag o /keZiky us Hkh fd;s FksA ;g uD'kk ekSdk fHkjkuh ds Fkkusnkj us esjh fu'kkunsgh ls rS;kj fd;k Fkk] tks iz0ih0&2 gS bl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA Fkkusnkj th us ?kVukLFky ls feV~Vh [kwukywnk o lknk tfj;s QnZ iz0ih0&3 iz0ih0&4 dCts iqfyl esa ysdj ekSds ij gh lhy gh xbZA bu QnkZr ij esjs gLrk{kj , ls ch gSA esjs HkkbZ gjir dks eqyfteku us xksyh blfy;s ekjh Fkh fd esjk HkkbZ muls iSls ekaxrk FkkA xksyh esjs HkkbZ dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls ekjh FkhA** 14. So far as the cross-examination of this witness is concerned, nothing contrary has come out from the cross-examination of this witness as well. 15. Witness PW-6 Mahaveer Prasad a Doctor while narrating the entire description of the injury has said that :- ^^;g pksVsa ekFks ij Nkrh ok isV ij lkeus ckabZ Hkqtk ok nk;ha Hkqtk ok nkfguh tka?k ij lkeus dh rjQ vkbZ gqbZ Fkh ;g lHkh pksVs vXuhvL= dh Fkh tks lk/kkj.k FkhA Nkrh dh pksVsa thou ds fy, [krjukd Fkh ftudh otg ls QsQM+s ds ckgj tks fNYyh gksrh gS mlesa gok Hkj xbZ Fkh ckdh lHkh pksVsa lk/kkj.k FkhA pksVksa dh vo/kh esjh tka?k ls 6 ?kaVs ds vUnj&vUnj dh FkhA** 16. The prosecution testimony regarding depositing, carrying of samples relating to FSL has also been properly narrated by all the witnesses of the prosecution and link of these aspects does not suffer from any breach. 17. The accused persons have asserted factum of enmity themselves and asserted this aspect under statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well. 18. Exhibit 38 and 39 are important FSL reports and Exhibit 38 is a result of examination report of Kurta (wearing) of victim and it has been opined in the report that Kurta which was worn by the victim at the time of incident, multiple holes of led were found there because led metal was detected on the periphery of these holes. Exhibit 39 a ballistic report relating to both the recovered weapons has also confirmed firing of shots from both these weapons W-1 and W-2 which were of 12 bore country made pistols. So far as recovery of weapons are concerned, PW 4 and PW 5 have established the recovery of both these weapons properly having been made on the instance of accused persons and this aspect has also remained un-controverted. 19. Thus, the cumulative analysis and re-appreciation of the evidence produced by prosecution and testimony of injured coupled with evidence of two eye witnesses namely Kashi Ram and Pratap Singh conclusively indicate that prosecution has succeeded in proving accusation beyond all reasonable doubt and to the opinion of this Court, the learned trial court has properly and logically considered and analysed the entire evidence in right perspective for recording finding against both the accused appellants. Thus upshot of above discussion is that the impugned judgment is based upon sound appreciation of evidence and appeal lacks merit. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has also not in higher side so, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with that aspect as well. 20. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The accused-appellants are directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence as awarded without consuming any time and the trial court is directed to ensure the compliance.