(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 325, 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 313, 397 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 145, 155 - Conviction for rioting, wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and criminal intimidation - Revisional Court can only rectify patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or law - Evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage, as his presence on the spot cannot be doubted; such testimony is accorded a special status and is to be accepted unless there are compelling circumstances to doubt it (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) - Minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses are not sufficient to discard the prosecution case (Para 26) - The identification of an accused for the first time in court, without a prior Test Identification Parade, is highly suspect and cannot be relied upon to record a conviction when the accused was not previously known to the witnesses (Para 39, 40, 41) - An alternative hypothesis admitted by a Medical Officer in cross-examination does not make the prosecution case suspect when the testimonies of witnesses are found credible (Para 43) - The failure to recover a weapon of offence or clothes is not fatal to the prosecution if the direct evidence is reliable (Paras 47, 49) - For an offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the threat caused alarm or induced the person threatened to do or omit an act (Paras 52, 53, 54, 55).

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 162 - A previous statement of a witness under Section 161 CrPC must be 'duly proved' before it can be used for contradiction; if the witness denies the statement, the investigating officer must be examined to prove it (Paras 24, 25).

Facts of the case:
The informant, along with two others, went to a temple. The accused persons obstructed and beat them with sticks, kicks, and fist blows, causing injuries, including a grievous injury (fracture of vertebrae) to one victim. The informant party was also threatened. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, which was upheld by the appellate court. The accused filed two separate criminal revisions against their conviction and sentence.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the identity of only two accused (Vishal Thakur @ Goldi and Suman Thakur) was proved through the witnesses' testimony. The identification of other accused (Nagesh Awasthi, Gopal Singh, Arvind Katoch) for the first time in court was unreliable as they were not previously known to the witnesses and no Test Identification Parade was held. The conviction of the two identified accused under Sections 147, 341, 323, and 325 read with Section 149 IPC was upheld. However, their conviction under Section 506 read with Section 149 IPC was set aside as the prosecution failed to prove that the threats caused alarm or induced any action. The other accused were acquitted of all charges.

Issues: The main issues were whether the identification of all accused was properly established, whether the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution version, whether the non-examination of independent witnesses was fatal, and whether the ingredients of criminal intimidation were met.

Ratio Decidendi: A court can rely on the testimony of an injured witness, which carries great evidentiary value. However, the identification of an accused for the first time in the dock, without a prior test identification parade, is suspect and unreliable, especially if the accused was a stranger to the witness. For a conviction under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the threat was intended to, and did, cause alarm or compel the victim to act or omit an act against their will.

Result : Criminal Revision No. 83/2015 allowed, and accused Nagesh Awasthi, Gopal Singh, and Arvind Katoch are acquitted. Criminal Revision No. 86/2015 partly allowed; accused Vishal Thakur and Suman Thakur are acquitted of the offence under Section 506 read with Section 149 IPC, but their conviction on other charges is maintained. The sentences were held not to be excessive and were not interfered with.