Sunita Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 27th March, 2003 and order of conviction dated 28th March, 2003 in FIR No. 371/2000 under Sections 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur vide which the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC and was released on probation for a period of two years on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount. He was also directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation to be paid to the injured.

2. Before coming to the grounds of the appeal, it will be in the fitness of things to have a narration of the brief history of the case.

3. On 12th October, 2000 on receipt of DD No. 24A regarding quarrel at Gurudwara road, SI Shiv Raj Singh (PW6) along with Constable Shripal reached the spot. Constable Ram Vilas (PW4) recorded DD No. 25A, Ex.PW3/B, which revealed that injured has been admitted to hospital. As such, SI Shiv Raj Singh along with Constable Ramvilas reached All India Institute of Medical Sciences where injured Surender Singh was found admitted. He recorded the statement of injured Surinder Ex.PW1/A, which culminated into registration of FIR. Blood stained clothes of injured were seized. Injuries on the person of Surender Singh were opined to be simple caused by sharp edged and blunt object. Accused persons were arrested. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court against Janak Raj Sharma, Ram Narain @ Liloo, Shivam Sharma and Nikhil Sharma.

4. On commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, as offence under Sections 308/34 Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, charge for offence under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons while recording their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein they denied the case of the prosecution and alleged false implication in the case.

5. Vide impugned order dated 27th March, 2003, co-accused Janakraj, Shivam and Nikhil were acquitted while observing that no convincing evidence has come on record to connect them with the crime. As regards the present appellant, namely, Ram Narayan @ Liloo is concerned, it was held that offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out against him, however, offence u/s 324 IPC is made out, accordingly, he was convicted under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced separately, as stated above. This order is the subject matter of the present appeal.

6. I have heard Mr. B.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the written submissions filed by Ms. Fizani Husain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record.

7. The only submission made by learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned order is that the material prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, as such they were declared hostile but the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant.

8. Rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, it was submitted by learned APP for the State that the injured has categorically deposed about the role of the present appellant and his testimony finds corroboration from PW2 Manoj Kumar. Further the ocular testimony of the witnesses find corroboration from the medical evidence as such the appellant was rightly convicted. The trial Court has already taken a lenient view by convicting the appellant under Section 324 IPC and releasing him on probation of two years. As such, it was submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which calls for interference. Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have given my considered thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have per