Judgment

DESAI, J. :- While granting special leave in the above matter, notice was issued to the petitioners to-show cause why the sentence imposed upon them by the High Court should not be enhanced. Mr. J. D. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged and in our opinion rightly that once a notice to enhance the sentence is issued the case is wide open and the appellants are entitled to challenge the correctness of the order. of conviction. We accordingly heard submissions on the merits of the order of conviction to satisfy us that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge.

2. Having heard Mr. Jain we are satisfied that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in convicting the appellants Sadha Singh and Natha Singh for an offence under S. 307/34 I.P.C. for attempting, to commit murder of Mohinder Singh and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 900/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Both of them were also convicted under S. 324/34 I.P.C. for causing injury to Ajit Singh for which each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Each of them was convicted for an offence under S. 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Both the accused. preferred Criminal Appeal No. 94-SB of 1982 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of the High Court. Mr. Harbans Singh, learned counsel appeared for the appellants. It appears that Mr. Harbans Singh did not question the correctness of the order of conviction because the learned single Judge stated in the first sentence of his judgment that Mr. Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has not addressed the Court on merits but prayed that the appellants are first offenders and the occurrence took place all of a sudden and that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced and fine may be enhanced. Therefore, it appears that the correctness of the order of conviction was not questioned before the High Court. It appears, therefore, futile to question the correctness of conviction or credibility of witnesses. We are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants on credible and reliable evidence for committing the offences under S. 307 read with Ss. 34 and 324 read with S. 34 and under S. 27 of Arms Act.

4. Even apart from this we have gone through the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses more, particularly the evidence of two injured witnesses P.W. 8 Ajit Singh and P.W.9 Mohinder Singh. Their evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence. Both the appellants were armed with guns and both of them fired their respective guns. Dr. Paranpal Singh who examined injured Mohinder Singh found six injuries on his person and opined that the injuries Nos. 1 to 5 were caused by a fire arm. Similarly, Ajit Singh was examined by him. He had suffered two injuries both of which in his opinion could be caused by a fire arm. This medical evidence corroborates the testimony of the injured witnesses. Nothing was pointed out to us or to the High Court why this evidence should not be accepted. We accept the same and held that the appellants were rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. The next question is what should be the adequate sentence. We must confess that what ought to be the proper sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of the trial court, which discretion has to be exercised on sound judicial principles. Various relevant circumstances which have a bearing on the question of sentence have to be kept in view. Before deciding the quantum of sentence the learned Sessions Judge has to hear both the sides as required by t