Judgment :

This appeal arises from the following facts:

2. Satish Chandra (PW.3) was running a video and tea shop in Tagore Villa, Dehradun and had employed Shanichar (PW.2) as a servant. It appears that Shanichar and Satish Chandra fell out over the payment of wages on which the former left his employment and accepted fresh employment with Rakesh Bahal, one of the appellants herein, as a servant in his shop. On account of this development the relations between the parties, who were otherwise well known to each other, became extremely strained and some threat was given by the Rakesh Bahal that in case Shanichar was not returned to his employment, dire consequence would follow on the complainant party. As a result of some compromise, however, it was ultimately agreed that Shanichar would return to Rakesh Bahal and for that purpose Satish Chandra took Shanichar on his scooter to the residence of Rakesh Bahal. It i further the case of the prosecution that there was some altercation between Rakesh Bahal on the one hand and Satish Chandra, Neelam appellant (sister of Rakesh Bahal) and mother Raj Bahal on the other, and in the course of this altercation Rakesh Bahal, caused two injuries w