JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 28.4.1993, in Sessions Trial No. 567 of 1991 convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s 324 IPC to undergo two years R.I. And a fine of Rs. 10,000/-in default payment of fine one years R.I. all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the complainant's cousin Mohd. Haroon s/o Abdul Lateef R/o 44/33 Ajeetganj Colony, P.S. Babupurva Kanpur has a shop of repairing of interlocking machine situated at House No. 109/198 Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Nazirabad. On 6.4.1987, complainant was present in the shop of his brother Mohd. Haroon and talking with him; at 7:30 pm, Ramji Nai, House No. 109/91 Resident of Mohalla Jawahar Nagar and his brother in law, Ram Chandar and two unknown people came to the shop armed with country made pistol, threatened and said to make arrangement of Rs. 1,000/-till tomorrow, otherwise, you will be no left alive and also said that immediately give him Rs. 100/-for wine then Mohd. Haroon tell him that he had no money. On this, the companion of Ramji Nai abusing him said that he would not give such money, kill him today. On this pretext Ramji Nai fired by country made pistol on Mohd. Haroon with intention of killing him. This bullet hits on left hand of Mohd. Haroon when both of us shouted then all the miscreants fled from the spot. Due to terror of this miscreants, panic caused among the shopkeepers and they started closing their shop quickly. 3. On this allegation injured as well as complainant rushed to the police station and lodge the written report (Exhibit Ka 1) against Ramji Nai, Ram Chandar and two unknown miscreants. Chik FIR (Exhibit Ka 2) registered at 8:05 pm under Section 307 IPC. The case was entered by means of General Diary. By Head Constable Moharir Shiv Awtar Pandey who proved the chik FIR as Exhibit Ka 2 and G.D. Srl. No. 61 at 8:05 pm is proved as Exhibit Ka 3. 4. On the request letter of the S.H.O. Nazirabad, Mohd. Haroon was examined by the Doctor G.V. Saxena (PW-4) who has medically examined Mohd. Haroon. On medical examination following injuries were found on PW 2 Mohd. No. 61 at 8:05 pm is proved as Exhibit Ka 3. 4. On the request letter of the S.H.O. Nazirabad, Mohd. Haroon was examined by the Doctor G.V. Saxena (PW-4) who has medically examined Mohd. Haroon. On medical examination following injuries were found on PW 2 Mohd. Haroom:- Lacerated wound 4cmX2cmX muscle deep, bone exposed on left hand and wrist back. Bleeding profusely. Injury kept under observation. Advised x-ray, caused by hard and blunt object, Duration about fresh. PW 4 proved the injury report as Exhibit Ka 4. 5. Investigation of this case is conducted by Investigating Officer during investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of witness and also prepared site plan and collect the injury report and collect the relevant papers. Investigating officer was not examined by prosecution during trial. During trial, learned counsel for the appellant accepted the genuineness of the police papers under Section 294 Cr.P.C. viz charge sheet against Prem Shankar as Exhibit Ka 5 and Ramji Nai & Ram Chandra as Exhibit Ka 6. Recovery memo of Blood Stained & Plain Cemented Floor as Exhibit Ka 7, Spot map as Exhibit Ka 8. 6. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet submitted against Ramji Nai, Ram Chandar and Mohd. Hasoon under Section 307 IPC. The charge framed against Ram Chandar, Prem Shankar on 12.9.1991 under Section 307/34 and against Ramji Nai under Section 307 IPC on 12.9.1991 charge read over and explained to the accused in hindi. They pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. 7. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution examined four witnesses PW 1, Abdul Jabbar complainant of this case and cousin of the injured. PW 2 Mohd. Haroon injured, PW 3 Shiv Autar Pandey, Head Constable and PW-4 Dr. G.V. Saxena. 8. After the conclusion of trial statement of appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that witnesses giving false statement due to enmity. No defence witness was examined by appellant. 9. Learned trial court after hearing both the parties acquitted Prem Shanker and Ram Chandar against the charge levelled u/s 307/34 IPC. Only Ramji Nai is convicted under Section 324 IPC as aforesaid. 10. Being aggrieved with the order of sessions court, sole appellant Ram Ji Nai preferred this appeal. No appeal preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of accused Ram Chandar and Prem Shankar. 11. Only Ramji Nai is convicted under Section 324 IPC as aforesaid. 10. Being aggrieved with the order of sessions court, sole appellant Ram Ji Nai preferred this appeal. No appeal preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of accused Ram Chandar and Prem Shankar. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri J.P. Tripathi the learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident took place in crowded place in Kanpur city but no any independent witness examined by the prosecution only interested and related witnesses were produced by the prosecution which belies the prosecution case and further submitted that the witness PW 1 and PW 2 examined before the court below, in which, PW 2 injured witness declared hostile and learned trial court without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, wrongly convicted the appellant and it is also submitted that as per medical report Exhibit Ka 4, Doctor clearly opined that the single injury which is caused by hard and blunt object which means a case of the prosecution is shattered as per injury report no gun shot injury found on the hand of the injured Mohd. Haroon. Lastly, the appellant counsel submitted that the date of incident is 6.4.1987. More than 33 years had already been elapsed in such a long time, no useful purpose shall be served to again sending the appellant to serve out the sentence. 13. Learned AGA submitted that the witness produced by the prosecution clearly established the case against the appellant. Doctor G.V. Saxena (PW 4) in his statement clearly stated that the injury inflicted to the injured Mohd. Haroon may also be caused by gun shot injury. Although, the doctor was not assured about the nature of injury but PW 4 in his statement clearly deposed that it could not be said that this injury is not inflicted by fire arm. This is a clear cut bullet injury and injured witness is most reliable witness and the testimony of the injured witness PW 2 cannot be doubted at strech of imagination. Statement of PW 2 regarding implication of appellant is clear and cogent. Prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant as such appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Statement of PW 2 regarding implication of appellant is clear and cogent. Prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant as such appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. On perusal of the case, it transpires that the FIR is very prompt and there is no delay in lodging the FIR which already strengthen the case of the prosecution and due to spontaneity, there is no occasion of any embellishment or due deliberation. So the prosecution case in this aspect is credible and believable. 15. One of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no independent witness examined by the prosecution and only related & interested witnesses were examined by the prosecution so no reliance has been placed on the testimony of these two witnesses. 16. As far as evidentiary value of and interested witnesses are concerned, in the case of Dalip Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1953 SC 364 ), it has been laid down as under by the Hon'ble Apex Court:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts." In the case of Masalti and others vs. State of U.P., (A.I.R. 1965 SC 202), it transpires that the evidence of related witness could not be rejected on the sole ground of interested or related witness. In this case, evidence of the interested and related witness shall be scrutinized with due care and caution. 17. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the PW1 in his cross examination stated that he could not see the face of the assailant-accused due to darkness around the spot. In this case, evidence of the interested and related witness shall be scrutinized with due care and caution. 17. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the PW1 in his cross examination stated that he could not see the face of the assailant-accused due to darkness around the spot. In this regard, the statement of the PW 1 firstly examined on 6.1.1992 but on the second day when he cross examined then he take U-turn and stated that he could not see the occurrence. But after perusing the entire statement, it is clearly established that the PW-1 was present on the spot. In his statement, he fully narrated the version of the prosecution, injured witness (PW 2) corroborated the version of the FIR but he clearly denied the role of the co-accused Ram Chandra, on this point, he already declared hostile and on the basis of this statement, Ram Chandra was acquitted by the learned trial court but with regard to the evidence against Ram Ji Nai, concerned PW 2 clearly shows that Ram Ji Nai inflicted injury by firing gun shot by country made pistol. Although, the medical examination report does not fully corroborate the oral evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 but during examination of PW 4, he clearly stated that if the bullet hit on hand then such type of injury may also occur so it cannot be said that injury inflicted on the hand of the injured witness did not cause by the country made pistol. 18. So after considering rival submissions of the parties and perusal of the record, identity of the appellant could not be disputed. Role of the appellant is clearly established. All the witnesses of fact PW 1 and PW 2 clearly specify the role of the appellant. Presence of the appellant is fully established. Medical report corroborated with the oral testimony of the PW 1 and PW 2. Their evidence has a ring of truth. Hence, learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC resultantly, conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is hereby affirmed. Presence of the appellant is fully established. Medical report corroborated with the oral testimony of the PW 1 and PW 2. Their evidence has a ring of truth. Hence, learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC resultantly, conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is hereby affirmed. Coming to the sentence to be imposed on the appellant since incident occurred more than 33 years ago and presently, the appellant is aged about 60 years and during intervening period, he had not indulged into any criminal activity nor he had any criminal background and presently, appellant is well rooted in society. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for showing leniency in this matter regarding sentence, is liable to be acceptable. 19. Considering the entire possible conspectus of circumstances, in my opinion sending appellant back to serve out remaining part of his sentence will not be in the interest of justice. It is also pertinent to mention that during trial appellant was in jail for more than 9 months so the end of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced for period undergone by him and fine enhanced from Rs. 10,000/-to 20,000/-. Out of which, the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-is awarded to the injured Mohd. Haroon, in case of his death, to the legal heirs of the injured Mohd. Haroon. The appellant is permitted to deposit the fine within period of one month from the date of the judgment. Failing to deposit the same, appellant shall surrender or he be taken in custody to serve out one year rigorous imprisonment as default sentence. 20. So the appeal is 'dismissed' on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the point of sentence as above. Appellant is already on bail. He need not to surrender but his personal and surety bond shall be discharged only after he had deposited the fine or has been arrested to serve out the default sentence imposed hereinabove. 21. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the learned trial court along with the lower court record, for its intimation and compliance.