1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment / order dated 30.10.1992 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kota in Sessions Case No. 42/1989, whereby the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:
Accused Appellant Birdha @ Birdhi Lal:
Convicted for the offence under S.307/114 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years - RI witha fine of Rs. 5000/-; In default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months - RI
Accused Appellant Hemraj:
Convicted for the offence under S.307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years - RI with a fine of Rs. 5000/-

2. In default of payment of fine, both the accused appellants were directed to further undergo 3 months - RI.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by Panchu Lal at Police Station, Itawa, District Kota for the offence under S.307/34 IPC against the accused appellants. The injured Ghisi Ban PW - 1 was also present at the time of lodging the FIR, whose injuries were also Inspected by the SHO and mentioned in the 'Karyavahi Police' . The police registered the case and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan. Thereafter the charges were framed; the accused appellants denied for the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced as many as 20 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under S.313 CrPC. They also got exhibited some documents. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment and dated 30.10.1992 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated here - in - above.

4. Against the said judgment, these two appeals have been filed by the accused appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that judgment of the trial court is erroneous and against the fact and law of the case. They have further contended that while appreciating the evidence of single injured witness Ghisi Bai PW - 1, the learned court below has committed error in believing upon that part of her statement, which she has improved at the trial, saying that the accused persons called her for illegal purpose, which does not find place in the FIR as well as in her police statement. They have further contended that the aforesaid fact was not mentioned in the FIR, even though the same was narrated by PW - 1 Ghisi Bai in her statement before the court below also that accused appellants called her for illegal purposes, which is not believable. They have further contended that she improved her statement and gave three different versions in her statement at the trial. In examination in chief itself, she had deposed that both the accused i.e. Birdhi Lal and Hemraj fired gun at her, while in the next breath in her examination in chief she deposed that only Hemraj fired at her and not Birdhi Lal. They have further contended that the trial court has not framed the charge for the offence under S.354 IPC or in any other section which could attract the words alleged to have been spoken by accused Hem Raj as well as Birdhi Lal. They have further contended that PW - 2 Panchu Lal has not said a single word in his statement regarding production of the gun. They have further contended that there was no connecting evidence, which could connect the accused appellants Birdhi Lal and Hemraj with the alleged crime and there is a contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses, hence the appeals should be allowed and the judgment of the court below should be quashed and set - aside and accused appellants should be acquitted. In the alternate, they have prayed that since the occurrence took place on 13.1.1989 i.e. 26 years ago from today; the appellants are facing the trial since the last 26 years; when the occurrence took place, the appellants were young and now the appellants are the old aged persons; the accused appellant Birdha @ Birdhi Lal has remained in custody for about 185 days; and accuse