IMPORTANT POINT
Corroboration of testimony on all material facts is necessary.

JUDGMENT

Charanjit Talwar, J. - Harbans Singh and his son Amritjeet Singh have challenged the correctness of the judgment under appeal whereby they have been found guilty under section 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They also seek setting aside of the order of sentence passed by the trial court on 30th April. 19113 releasing them "on probation on their furnishing a bond to the tune of Rs. 5000/- each for a period of two years with one surety of the like amount to keep good behaviour and peace and also be of good character during that period". Neither the counsel not the appellants are present. With the help of Mrs. Anand, learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the evidence on record.

2. The occurrence is of 15th July, 1981. It has been found that P.W. 1 Arun Kumar was indicted a blow on the scalp, by the second appellant Amritjeet Singh with an iron rod in funherance of their common intention, It appears that appellant No.1 Harbans Singh was a sub-contractor of Shri Joginder Singh whose son Kanwarjeet Singh was very well known to the injured Arun Kumar. The appellants had been given a contract by the father of Arun Kumar to construct a house on a plot owned by his (Arun Kumar's) mother. It is not necessary to notice in detail the disputes which had arisen between the complainant's family and the appellant's family out of the said house building contract. Arun Kumar and his father were demanding the amount, which according to them had been received in excess by the appellants whereas the appellants case was that it was the complainant-party who owed them certain amounts. It is, however, admitted case that the appellant Harbans Singh had contracted Kanwarjeet Singh's father requesting him to intervene in the matter and have the accounts settled between the parties. On 15th July, 1981. Arun Kumar accompanied by Kanwarjeet Singh went to residential colony known as Kalindi near about 12'O Clock where Harbans Singh was constructing a house. According to these two witnesses they had gone there on the asking of Harbans Singh to settle the accounts. Appellant No. 2 Amritjeet Singh was also present there. Number of labourers and masons were also working there. It is the 'case of the prosecution' that hot words were exchanged between the appellants and the said two witnesses. The version of Arun Kumar P. W. 1 is that at that stage Harbans Singh assaulted him. According to him, "Harbans Singh pushed me as a result of which I fell on the ground and when I was lying on the ground, Amritjeet Singh accused had hit me on my head with an iron rod. Harbans Singh accused also gave me a blow with Danda which hit me on my fight shoulder. I was also hit on my hand with a “kar-nit by two masons who were working there". In his examination in chief he admitted having given first blows to appellant Harbans Singh. The allegation of the prosecution that Arun Kumar WAS rescued by Kanwarjeet Singh P.W. 3 has been found to have been proved. He was removed to Holy Family Hospital but in the way he became unconscious. In the Hospital his x-ray was taken and on the initiative of the hospital authorities the police was summoned who recorded a report which has been. made the hasis of the first information report. In the evening the injured was taken by the police to the spot from where an iron rod said to be smeared with hair one' danda, and broken spectacles, which according to Arun Kumar he was wearing at the time of the scuffle, were recovered. It is, not disputed by the defence that Arun Kumar had received injuries at that time. It is of no use to notice the medical evidence and other evidence which establish the fact that three injuries including one 01 the scalp and another on the shoulder, were received by Arun Kumar.

3. The plea of the accused before' the trial Court and also in the memorandum of appeal is that those injuries were not indicted by the second appellant Amritjeet Singh.

4. The case of appellant Harbans Singh i