The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on overwhelming evidence to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the affirmation of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant criminal revision petition lays challenge to judgment dated 29.9.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh in Crl. RBT Appeal No. 26-K/10/2007, affirming judgment of sentence and order of conviction dated 6.7.2007/7.7.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra in Cr. Case No. 40-II/2002 titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shankar Dass and others, whereby learned court below though held the petitioner accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under S.325 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, but acquitted all the other accused namely Bimla Devi, Paramjeet Kaur alias Pammi, Sukhvinder Singh and Kuldep Singh.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that FIR Ext.W-9/B dated 5.10.2004 came to be lodged on the basis of statement of Shashi Devi, PW-1, complainant, wife of the injured Satpal, recorded under S.154 CrPC, Ext. PW-1/A, that on 6.5.2001, at 6/7 pm, she alongwith her husband Satpal had gone to their fields and thereafter having seen, accused Shankar Dass, who at the relevant time was ploughing the joint land, raised objection but the petitioner-accused Shankar Dass administered blow of Kahi (an iron instrument used for digging of land) on the head of Satpal. In the meantime, sons of petitioneraccused, Skhvinder and Kuldeep, also reached the spot and they alongwith Bimla Devi wife of the petitioner and Paramjeet Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, gave beatings to Satpal husband of complainant, as a consequence of which injured Satpal, suffered serious injuries and he was removed to the hospital for medical treatment. Injured was taken to Tanda Hospital, from where he was further referred to Pathankot and then to IGMC Shimla for medical treatment. After completion of investigation, police presented challan under Ss.323, 506 and 34 IPC, against all the accused named herein above, in the competent court of law. Learned trial Court after having found prima facie case against the accused, proceeded to frame charges under Ss.323 and 34 IPC against all the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as ten witnesses in all, whereas, accused despite opportunity having been afforded to them, failed to lead any evidence in their defence. However, all the accused, in their statements recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied the prosecution case and claimed that they have been falsely implicated.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by prosecution though acquitted the accused BImla Devi, Paramjeet Kaur alias Pammi, Sukhvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh, but held the petitioner-accused Shankar Dass guilty of having committed offences punishable under S.325 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal under S.374 CrPC, in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Kangra at Dharamshala, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.9.2011. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant petition, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned Courts below.

5. I have heard the parties and gone through record meticulously.

6. Before ascertaining correctness of submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to take note of the fact that no appeal whatsoever came to be filed against the acquittal of other accused on behalf of the respondent State and as such, this court need not examine the correctness of findings recorded by learned trial Court qua acquittal of the