The court's decision was influenced by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the scuffle and stone pelting at the spot, leading to the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 IPC.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. The appellants are challenging their conviction and order on sentence dated 17th September, 2002 whereby they have been held guilty under Section 323/34 IPC and ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months.

2. The case FIR No.871/1997 under Section 308/186/353/332/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar on the basis of statement made by the complainant Sh.Surender Yadav (PW-9) at DDU Hospital where he was admitted. SI Rajiv Dudiyal, who visited the hospital, obtained the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured to make the statement and thereafter recorded the statement Ex.PW13/A which is to the effect that on 20th October, 1997 at about 8:00 pm the appellant Praveen Kumar came to the restaurant of the complainant to collect some payment for the electrical work done by him. The complainant made part-payment and asked to collect the balance later on. The appellant Praveen Kumar abused the complainant and left after extending threat. The complainant closed the restaurant and returned to his house. At about 8:30 PM, the appellant Praveen Kumar along with his brother came to the house of the complainant and they started hurling abuses. When the complainant came out of his house, appellant Praveen Kumar threw a brick on him which hit on his head. On hearing the cries of the complainant another injured Rahul reached there to save him. Other persons also collected there. Both the appellants started throwing pieces of bricks on the police officials who arrived at the spot and one of the brick hit DHG Const. Madan Lal. The injured were removed to DDU Hospital by the PCR Van. The appellants were charged for committing offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC and thereafter on the application of the State, additional charge for committing offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was also framed for causing simple injury by blunt object to Rahul and DHG Const. Madan Lal.

3. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case. Both the appellants during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied their involvement and stated that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant in connivance with the local police. Two defence witnesses were examined to prove the motive for false implication.

4. The appellants are challenging their conviction mainly on the following grounds:

(i) No independent witness has been examined in respect of the occurrence and material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix have been ignored by the learned Trial Court.

(ii) The doctor who prepared the MLC Ex.PW-12/1 has not been examined.

(iii) The prosecution story to the extent that PW-2 Delhi Home Guard (DHG) Const. Madan Lal also suffered injury at the hands of the appellant has been disbelieved.

(iv) Statements of defence witnesses have been wrongly discarded.

(v) In the impugned judgment the date of incident is mentioned as 21st October, 1997 whereas as per FIR the incident is dated 20th October, 2017.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant Pradeep is a Government servant. No injury was caused by any of the appellants and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The injury suffered by Surender Yadav was due to slipping on the muddy road as admittedly it was drizzling at that time. It is also contended that PW-8 Rahul Yadav used to sit on the restaurant being run by Surender Yadav who is his cousin. Surender Yadav received injury when some customers at the restaurant had a fight with him in drunken state.

6. I have perused the Trial Court Record. The date of incident has been stated to be 20th October, 1997 at about 8:00 pm and the correct date of occurrence has been recorded by the learned Trial Court in the charge as well para 2 and para 5 of the impugned judgment.

7. The testimony of PW-2 DHG Const. Madan Lal has not been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court. Rather learned Trial Court has recorded