O R D E R

The petitioners (for short “the accused”) became charged for the commission of offences constituted under Sections 452, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and, with respect to the afore drawn charge against the accused, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month , for, charge drawn under Section 452 of I.P.C readwith Section 34 of IPC. The learned trial Court further sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-, and, in default of payment of fine, it sentenced the accused to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days , for, charge drawn under Section 324 of IPC readwith Section 34 of IPC.

2. Being aggrieved from the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith imposed sentences (supra), hence recorded by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 6-D/2006, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. Upon the afore appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made a verdict hence dismissing the appeal filed before it by the accused, and obviously hence maintained and affirmed the verdict drawn by the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2004 at about 7.15 p.m. at village Kuther, the complainant Saroop Kumar was present in his shop when accused Ravinder Kumar came. The complainant asked him to give his money for the goods being supplied to the accused in the morning. Upon this, the accused Ravinder Kumar went to his house and returned back with his father. Accused Ravinder Kumar gave a darat blow to the complainant on his left hand. The complainant then raised alarm, on which Kishori Lal s/o Chunni Lal and Vinod Kumar son of Dev Raj came into the spot and rescued the complainant. Accused Ravinder Kumar gave a drat blow on the left side of Kishori Lal. It was also stated that the accused were also having a cycle chain with which they gave blow to Kishori Lal. Thereafter the complainant lodged an FIR with the police Station concerned. Both the complainant and Kishori Lal were medically examined.

After completion of investigation, the relevant challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

3 (A). The FIR, as, lodged qua the ill-fated occurrence, is, embodied in Ex. PW-5/A. For proving the narrations carried therein, the prosecution ensured, the, stepping into the witness box, of, PW-1 (Kishori Lal), PW-2 (Vinod Kumar) and PW-4 (Saroop Singh). The afore PWs in their respective testifications carried in their respective examination(s)-in-chief, rendered a vivid and graphic ocular account, vis-à-vis, the ill-fated occurrence, as, carried in the FIR (supra). The afore PWs, during their respective cross-examination(s), did not make any exculpatory echoings, vis-a,vis, the accused. Moreover, in their respective cross-examination(s) they did not make any gross improvements or embellishments upon their respectively recorded previous statements in writing. Consequently, when the depositions of the PWs (supra) are free from any taint or blemishes of any inter-se or intra-se contradictions, therefore, this Court becomes enjoined to mete the absolutest credence thereto. 4. Moreover, all the afore PWs, completely denied, the suggestion as became put to them, by the learned defence counsel, that the ill-fated occurrence did not take place at the relevant time. They also denied the suggestion, as became meted to them, that Darat borne in Ex. P-1, and, cycle Chain borne in Ex. P-2, recovered through memo Ex. PW-1/A, becoming never used by the accused in theirs inflicting injuries upon Saroop Kumar, and, upon Kishori Lal.

5. Be that as it may, the afore ocular account with respect to the genesis of the prosecution case, gathers supp