A conviction must be overturned if credible inconsistencies in witness testimonies create reasonable doubt about guilt.

1. The present revision has been preferred by the petitioners / accused (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") challenging the judgment, dated 01.12.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 29-8/10 of 2004, whereby the judgment of conviction dated 16.10.2004, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 192/2 of 2004/2002 was upheld and the accused were convicted. The accused / convicts were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court for the offence punishable under S.451 and S.323 read with S.34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.800/- and Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine they were further sentenced to undergo 15 and 7 days' simple imprisonment.

2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present revision, as per the prosecution story, are that on 06.08.2002, the accused persons picked up a quarrel with the son of the complainant (Shri Dula Ram) and trespassed into his property. The accused persons thrashed the complainant and also pelted bricks. Shri Nand Lal and Shri roshan Lal, rescued the complainant party. The matter was reported to the police on the same day and an FIR was registered. Police investigated the matter and prepared the spot map. A piece of brick and pipe were taken into possession. Blood stained shirt of the complainant was also taken into possession. The injured (complainant) was medically examined and as per the medical report he sustained seven simple injuries on his person. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were also recorded.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The statements of the accused, under S.313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. No defence witness was produced by the accused.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 16.10.2004, convicted all the accused persons for the offence punishable under S.451 and S.323 read with S.34 IPC and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.800/- and Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine they were further sentenced to undergo 15 and 7 days' simple imprisonment. The accused, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., however, the same was also dismissed, hence the present revision.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners - accused and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent - State.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned First Appellate Court has incorrectly appreciated the testimonies of PW - 1, Shri Dula Ram, PW - 4, Shri Roshal Lal and PW - 5, Shri Nand Lal. He has further argued that the prosecution witnesses are interested and much weight cannot be attached to their testimonies. The judgments of both the learned Courts below are the result of wrong appreciation of facts and law. Lastly, he prayed that the revision may be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the evidence on record has also been correctly appreciated by the learned Courts below and the accused persons have been rightly, therefore, the judgments of the learned Courts below need no interference. So, the revision of the petitioners may be dismissed.

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

8. PW - 1, Shri Dula Ram (complainant), supported the prosecution case and he has deposed that on 06.08.2002, when he reached home, he witnessed that accused persons were arguing with his son, as they used to throw garbage on their house. The accused persons trespassed in his house and thrashed him. As per the compl