JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

1. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/State laying challenge to judgment dated 30.09.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 57/2 of 2002, whereby the respondents/accused persons (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 29.04.2002, at about 09:00 p.m., complainant Kamaljeet Singh alongwith his wife Smt. Rupinder Kaur was at his wife's maternal house at Bhhupur. In the meantime, the accused persons came there and after exchange of some heated arguments, they hit the complainant with Kirpan. Owing to which, the complainant sustained injuries on his fingers. The accused persons also hit the wife of the complainant with kick and fist blows and she also sustained injuries in the occurrence. Consequently, the complainant reported the matter to the police, whereupon, a case was registered against the accused persons and investigation ensued. Police prepared the site plan and procured medico legal certificates of injured. Police also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the learned Trial Court.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as five witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded not guilty. In defence, the accused persons have examined two witnesses.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 30.09.2008, acquitted the accused persons for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of IPC, hence the present appeal.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly appreciated the facts and the impugned judgment is based upon surmises and conjectures. He has further argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its right and true perspective and the accused persons have wrongly been acquitted. He has argued that the statements of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and were discarded merely on the ground of minor contradictions and improvements, thus the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there are contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He has further argued the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the material, which has come on record, and the judgment, as rendered by the learned trial Court, is after appreciating the facts and law to their right and true perspective and as such, the judgment of acquittal needs no interference and the appeal be dismissed.

7. In rebuttal, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that after re-appreciating the evidence, the accused persons be convicted by setting aside the judgment of the learned trial Court, as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.

8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record carefully.

9. In the case at hand, the statements of the PW-3 Complainant, PW-2 Smt. Rupinder Kaur and PW-4 Smt. Surender Kaur are very important. Admittedly, the accused persons are relatives of the injured persons and had some litigation going on.

10. The complainant, Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, has appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and deposed that on 29.04.2002, when he alongwith his wife was sitting in his courtyard, the accused persons alongwith one unknown person came there, abused them and made an effort to hit him with Kirpan, however, he held the Kirpan with his hand, on account of which, he sustained injuries on his fingers. The