JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.:- Five appellants namely Ravi Datt (accused No.l) Indar Singh (accused No.2) Rama Nand, (accused No.3) Joginder Singh (accused No.4) and Jagdish Chand (accused No.5) were put up for trial for the commission of offences under Sections 147,148,149, 307 and 323IPC. Before the Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions trial No. 19-S/7 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge chargesheeted the accused under Sections 147,307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and under Section 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated April 1, 1997. The accused were sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 147 IPC. and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo imprisonment for one month A-3 and A-5 were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/under Section 325 IPC. and in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo imprisonment for three months. A-l, A-2 and A-4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 325 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo imprisonment for three months. The accused have assailed the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence in this appeal. 2. One Shri Lekh Ram resident of village Chilla, Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan is the brother of A-3. Shri Lekh Ram was unmarried. He had executed a Will of his land in favour of A-l, A-2, A- 3 and A-4, but later on he revoked the said Will and bequeathed his share of the land in favour of Shri Gauri Datt and his son and due to the change of the Will by Lekh Ram, the accused stated to have entertained, animosity and hostility against Shri Lekh Ram, Shri Gauri Datt and other members of his family. Shri Gauri Datt, his brothers namely Shri Prem Singh and Chet Ram are also residents of village Chilla. They are litigating with the accused on account of landed property in the court. There is a water tank constructed at Village Chilla which caters the requirement of drinking water to the residents of village Chilla, besides, the water is being used by the residents for irrigation purpose. 3. They are litigating with the accused on account of landed property in the court. There is a water tank constructed at Village Chilla which caters the requirement of drinking water to the residents of village Chilla, besides, the water is being used by the residents for irrigation purpose. 3. It was on August 27, 1993 at about 7 A.M. that Shri Gauri Datt (PW-1) his brother Chet Ram (PW-19) had gone to the water tank of wash their hands and for fetching drinking water to their house. They noticed that the accused had connected a water pipe in the tank for irrigating their fields. PWs. Gauri Datt and Chet Ram temporarily disconnected the water pipe of the accused for the purpose of washing their hands, faces as well as filling water in a bucket. In the meanwhile, A-5 came there and asked PWs. Gauri Datt and Chet Ram regarding the disconnection of the water pipe. They replied that they would connect the water pipe as before after washing their hands, mouths and collecting water in their bucket. On hearing the reply of PWs. Gauri Datt and Chet Ram, A-5 went to his house in a fits of rage. PW. Shri Gauri Datt after collecting water in a bucket started to proceed to his house situated nearby the water tank whereas, PW Chet Ram was still busy in washing hands. PW Shri Gauri Datt hardly had reached in the courtyard of his house, he saw all the accused persons running towards water tank wielding "Khilnas" (Hoestools used chiefly for breaking up or loosing the surface of the ground). As soon as they reached at the water tank they started beatings PW Chet Ram who fell down on the ground. When Shri Prem Singh (PW-20), third brother of PWs. Gauri Datt and Chet Ram was being given beating by the accused persons, he rushed to the scene of the occurrence with a view to rescue his brother but he too was beaten. When the accused persons were giving beating to Chet Ram and Prem Singh , Smt. Uma Devi (PW-3) wife of Prem Singh, Malti Devi, (PW-4) mother of Gauri Datt, Chet Ram and Prem Singh and the wife of Chet Ram also reached at the place of occurrence and tried to save Chet Ram and Prem Singh from the clutches of the accused. The accused had not even spared these women from giving beatings. PW Smt. Malti Devi laid on the person of Chet Ram to save him from giving more beatings but she was assaulted repeatedly. On seeing the entire episode from his courtyard, PW Gauri Datt immediately rushed to Police Station, Kandaghat and lodged a report there. The Police Officials instantaneously proceeded to village Chilla. It was further case of the prosecution that some residents of the village had also reached on the spot for saving the lives of Chet Ram, Prem Singh, Smt. Malti Devi and others and they were able to drive away the accused persons from the scene of the occurrence. Both the victims, namely, Chet Ram and his mother smt, Malti Devi were brought to their house buy the residents of village in an unconscious condition. Chet Ram and Prem Singh injured were lying unconscious at the place of occurrence, when Shri Garib Dass (PW-21) Inspector/S.H.O Police Station, Kandaghat had reached at the scene of incident. Inspector Shri Garib Dass could manage to bring injured Chet Ram and Prem Singh on the road side from where they were brought to the Govt. Hospital, Kandaghat. Smt. Uma devi was brought to the house in battered state. Dr. Rakesh Sood (PW-13) who at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Kandaghat provided medical aid to all the victims but noticing the serious condition of the victims and the nature of the wounds on their persons, Dr. Rakesh sood referred Chet Ram and Prem Singh to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science (PGI), Chandigarh for further treatment. Smt. Malti Devi and Smt. Uma Devi were treated at Govt. Hospital, Kandaghat. Both these victims gained consciousness at PGI, Chandigarh, PW. Chet Ram remained under treatment for 14 days for injury sustained by him on his head on account of beatings given by the accused whereas PW Prem Singh remained at PGI. Chandigarh for seven days. 4. On these allegations First Information Report Ext. PA came to be registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, Inspector Shri Garib Dass prepared site plan Ext. PW-21/A at the spot. The weapon of offence i.e. Khailnas were recovered from the accused vide recovery memos Exts. PE and PF pursuant to their statements Exts. PF/1 to PF/4. Chandigarh for seven days. 4. On these allegations First Information Report Ext. PA came to be registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, Inspector Shri Garib Dass prepared site plan Ext. PW-21/A at the spot. The weapon of offence i.e. Khailnas were recovered from the accused vide recovery memos Exts. PE and PF pursuant to their statements Exts. PF/1 to PF/4. Some blood stains earth and stones from the place of occurrence were also taken into possession by the Investigation officer. S.L. Shri Garib Dass also took into possession blood stained clothes belonging to victims Chet Ram and Prem Singh handed over to him by PW Gauri Datt. Inspector Shri Garib Dass recorded the statements of the material witnesses and after completion of the investigation and receipt of report from Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext.PW-21/E), final report was filed in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, who committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The accused persons also lodged a report against victims Chet Ram, Prem Singh and PW Gauri Datt at Police Station Kandaghat regarding taking place of the occurrence, but it appears that no FIR was lodged on their report by the Police. 5. On consideration of the material placed on the record by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge has found a prima facie case against all the accused and accordingly chargesheeted then under Sections 147,307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses to prove its case. The accused in their statements recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the allegations levelled against them. In his statement A-l denied the recovery of Khilna by the Investigating officer at his instance and stated that the Police asked him to produce Khilna in the Police Station. His defence was that all the witnesses belong to one family and they bear grudge against him and his family members because of some pending litigation interse the parties. He pleaded that he is innocent and a false case has been concocted against him. 6. A-2 stated that on the day of the occurrence, he alongwith A-4 had gone to water tank to connect the water pipe for taking water to their fields for irrigation. He pleaded that he is innocent and a false case has been concocted against him. 6. A-2 stated that on the day of the occurrence, he alongwith A-4 had gone to water tank to connect the water pipe for taking water to their fields for irrigation. The pipe so connected by them was disconnected by Prem Singh, Chet Ram, Smt. Malti Devi and Uma Devi who also gave beatings to him and Joginder Singh (A-4). He stated that the dispute was originated by the complainant party and A-3 and A-5 came on the spot to rescue them from the clutches of the complainant party .They also stated that Chet Ram, Prem Singh, Smt. Malti Devi and Smt. Uma Devi fell down on the stones and sustained injuries on their persons. On account of some litigation interse the parties, a false case has been registered against him and other accused by complainant party. He also pleaded innocence. Similar and identical statements have been given by A-3, A-4 and A-5. A- 3 has also specifically stated that when Chet Ram, Prem Singh, Gauri Datt, Smt. Malti Devi. Smt. Uma Devi, Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Tara stated fleeing from the scene of occurrence, they fell down from the Danga on the stone and sustained injuries on their persons. He further stated that Indar Singh and Joginder accused were also got medically examined for the serious injuries on their head inflicted by the complainant party. However, no defence evidence has been led by the accused. 7. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the ocular version of PWs. Gauri Datt, Lekh Ram, Balkishan (PW-4), victims Smt. Malti Devi, Chet Ram, Prem Singh, Smt. Uma Devi and medical evidence of Dr. S.C. Pathak (PW-10), Dr. Rajnish Pathania (PW-9), PW, Dr. Rakesh Sood and the recovery statements purported to be recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, found all the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to the respective imprisonments as aforesaid. However, the accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. Now,, the accused has filed the present appeal in this Court challenging their conviction and sentence: 8. I have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned Counsel for the accused and Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. It was contended by Mr. However, the accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. Now,, the accused has filed the present appeal in this Court challenging their conviction and sentence: 8. I have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned Counsel for the accused and Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. It was contended by Mr. Jagdish Vats that the testimony of the eye witnesses of the occurrence who belong to one family has not been scrutinized with care and caution by the learned Sessions Judge and the conclusion drawn that the accused persons were the aggressors is contrary to the evidence o the prosecution witnesses in the face of the facts that A-2 and A-4 had received injuries at the hands of the injured witnesses and the prosecution has failed to explain the said injuries on the persons of these two accused. Mr. Vats next contended that the prosecution case against the accused was that the complainant party was attacked by the accused with "Khilna", but from the out door patient card marked Ext. PW-1 I/A) issued by the doctor of PGI, Chandigarh in respect of the injuries sustained by victim Prem Singh, the injury was found having been inflicted by a stick and, therefore the ocular version of the injured witness cannot be accepted that the accused has used "Khilnas" as weapon of offence in the scuffle. The learned Counsel also contended that in a fight between two rival groups, it is settled law that the nature of injury received by the complainant party has not to be weighed by the use of force in golden scale and the occurrence in the present case had taken place at a spur of moment when the accused were protecting their property i.e. water pipe admittedly being disconnected by the complainant party, and the accused might have used the force to protect their right of property. It was next contended that no statement of any of the accused was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of the said statement, the recovery of "Khilnas", if any at the instance of the accused cannot be accepted as admissible evidence and the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly placed reliance on such recovery connecting the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. 9. 9. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General has sought to support the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge and contended that on assessment of the entire evidence of the injured witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence, the prosecution has proved that the accused Were the aggressors who were armed with and used the weapon of offence i.e. Khilnas by which injuries were inflicted on the persons of the victims. He also contended that there was no right of private defence of the property available to the accused at the place of occurrence as the water tank was common for all the residents of the village and the right to take water supply for irrigation by the accused by inserting the water pipe in the tank was not their exclusive right. He next contended that the contents of the prescription card Ext. PW-1 I/A have not been proved by the Doctor who issued the same and unless the contents of causing the injury by stick to victim Prem Singh, the prescription card by itself is not admissible under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such no reliance can be placed by the accused on such opinion. The learned Deputy Advocate General further contended that besides the injured PW.2 Lekh Ram who is member of the family of the accused also corroborated the eye account of the injured witnesses and there is no cogent reason proved by the accused not to accept the truthful version of the eye witnesses. Lastly the learned Deputy Advocate General contended that a specific defence was taken by the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that the victims had suffered injuries on their persons due to fall on stone while they were retuning back to their house from the scene of occurrence was found to be false in the face of the medical evidence which clearly proves that the injuries found on the persons of the victim were caused by use of "Khilnas by the accused. 10. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the respective contention of the learned Counsel. In this case there is direct evidence of the injured persons and other witnesses, corroborated by the medical expert about the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the victims in the occurrence. 10. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the respective contention of the learned Counsel. In this case there is direct evidence of the injured persons and other witnesses, corroborated by the medical expert about the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the victims in the occurrence. The presence of the victims on the scene of the occurrence is not in dispute. It has been proved by PWs Gauri Datt and Chet Ram that on the day of occurrence they were washing their hands and mouths at the common water tank when A-5 came there and asked them as to why they had disconnected the water pipe fitted with the tank and on their reply, A-5 returned to his house and informed the other accused persons who came on the spot armed with weapon of offence i.e. Khilna. All the accused persons first started giving beatings to PW Chet Ramand then AW-1 flashed a blow of Khilnas on his head with the result that Chet Ram fell on the ground but still the accused continued assaulting him without hesitation. It has come in the evidence of the eye witnesses that when PW. Prem Singh tried to intervene all the accused started assaulting him. Other injured witnesses namely, Smt. Malti Devi and Smt. Uma Devi also reached at the spot to save both Chet Ram and Prem Singh from the clutches of the accused but they too met with the same treatment at the hands of the accused. The animosity and hostility entertained by the accused persons against he complainant party was that PW Lekh Ram brother of A-3 and uncle of other accused had bequeathed his land to PW Gauri Datt, brother of injured Chet Ram and Prem Singh. The injured Smt. Malti Devi and Smt. Uma Devi have categorically stated that when they saw the accused persons mercilessly assaulting Chet Ram and Prem Singh with Khilnas, they reached at the scene of occurrence to save Chet Ram and Prem Singh from causing more harm to them, but he accused had not even spared them (women victims) from assaulting by Khilnas on their respective head and then the accused persons fled-away from the scene of occurrence. PW Lekh Ram in his statement has admitted that he had executed a will in favour of AW- 1, AW-4 and AW-5 being his nephews as he was unmarried, but lateron he revoked the said Will and executed second Will in favour of PW Gauri Datt and his sons. He categorically stated that his brother namely Rama Nand A3 and Paras Ram father of A-5 and other accused persons got annoyed with him because of change of Will and started entertaining animosity against him. He deposed that the accused persons had given beating to the victims with Khilnas on the day of occurrence. He was associated by the Police in the investigation and in his presence all the accused persons disclosed that they had concealed Khilnas which were used by them for inflicting injuries on the persons o the victims and in his presence the accused persons brought Khilnas Exts. P-6 to P-10 from their houses and handed over them to the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed that the statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were made by A-1 marked Ext. PF/4; A-2 marked as Ext. PF/2, A-4 marked Ext.P-3; and A-5 marked as Ext. PF/1 before the recovery of Khilnas and then recovery was effected by the police. 11. One more independent witness, namely, Bal Krishan (PW-4) has also seen the entire episode and also testified the versions of the injured witnesses. From the entire appraisal of the ocular version of the victims and other eye witnesses, it is clearly established by the prosecution that till the accused armed with Khilnas assembled at the water tank (the place of occurrence) with intention to cause injures to the victims and they have rightly been held to be aggressors by the learned Sessions Judge. The complainant party was empty handed and in the teeth of overwhelming, cogent and convincing evidence of the the eye witnesses, it if clearly proved that the injuries were inflicted on the victims by the accused persons by Khilnas and some of those victims were grievous in nature. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that was the complainant party who was the aggressor is not found acceptable. 12. Dr. Rakesh Sood, medically examined injured Prem Singh at civil Hospital Kandaghat on 27.8.1993 and issued medico legal certificate Ext. PW-13/A Dr. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that was the complainant party who was the aggressor is not found acceptable. 12. Dr. Rakesh Sood, medically examined injured Prem Singh at civil Hospital Kandaghat on 27.8.1993 and issued medico legal certificate Ext. PW-13/A Dr. Sood observed the following injuries on the person of injured Prem Singh: "1. There were multiple clean lacerated would over the scalp. Its number were five. The skin and subcutaneous tissue were involved in the would alongwitht fascia deep and the wound was freshly bleeding. 2. There was clean lacerated wound on the occipital region. Its dimension were 10 cm long. It was freshly bleeding. Its position was transverse. 3. There was a clean lacerated wound over the right partial area which was 8 cm. long. It was freshly bleeding. The wound was situated anteroposteriorly. 4. There was clean lacerated wound over the mid line partital area. It was oblique and 7.5. cm. long and it was freshly bleeding. 5. There was clean lacerated wound over the frontal area. The wounds were two. The wounds were measuring 5 CM. and 2 cm respectively. The wound were transversly situated and were freshly bleeding. 6. There was a contusion over the lower aspect of right infrascapular region measuring 10 cmx 10 cm. It was red in colour. There was creptitos presenton palpation. This preptitos was extending from scapula to right axilla on right side. This is called as subcutaneous emphyseme. 13. Dr. Rakesh Sood referred injured Prem Singh to P.G.I. Chandigarh, because in is opinion the condition of the inured was serious andthe nature of the wound were severe. Dr. sood also opined that the nature of weapon used as blunt and the duration of the wounds were recent. 14. Dr. Sood also medically examined injured Chet Ram on the same day and issued medico legal certificate Ext. PW-13/B. Dr. Sood, deposed that injured Chet Ram was in semi-conscious condition when he was brought to the hospital. The following injuries were observed by Dr. Sood on the person of Chet Ram:- "1. There was clean lacerated wound over the left partial area which was 8CM long and was situated antasroposteriarly. It was skin subcutaneous tissue and fasciad. The wound was freshly bleeding. 2. There was clean lacerated wound over the right parital area. The wound was 9 cm long. It situated antaroposteriarly. Sood on the person of Chet Ram:- "1. There was clean lacerated wound over the left partial area which was 8CM long and was situated antasroposteriarly. It was skin subcutaneous tissue and fasciad. The wound was freshly bleeding. 2. There was clean lacerated wound over the right parital area. The wound was 9 cm long. It situated antaroposteriarly. It was skin subcutaneous tissue and fasciad. The wound was freshly bleeding. 3. There was clean lacerated wound over the frontal area in mid line, it was 5 cm long. It was situated transversely." 15. Injured Chet Ram was also referred to PGI, Chandigarh as in the opinion of Dr. Sood there appeared to be fracture of the skull and intracranial bleeding. 16. Dr. RakeshJSood also examined injured Smt. Malti Devi and found following injures on her person:- "1. There was a clean lacerated wound over the occipital region. 2. There was clean lacerated wound over the right side of frontal region as shown in Ext. PW-13/C. 3. There was a clean lacerated wound over the posterior aspect of left first inter digital space". 17. He issued medico legal certificate Ext.PW-13/C. All the injuries on the persons of Smt. Malti Devi were found simple in nature and duration was recent. In respect of injuries sustained by injured Smt. Uma Devi, the opinion given by the Doctor in M.L. C. Ext. PW-13/D was that were was clean lacerated wound over the optical region 6 cm. long. According to the opinion of Dr. Sood, after, the receipt of of report from the PGI. in the case of injured Prem Singh, injury No. 1 was described as simple and other injuries were found grievous in nature. Injuries found on the person of victim Chet Ram were opined to be grievous in nature. Doctor Sood has also deposed that injuries on the person of all the victims could be caused by Khilnas Exts. P-6 to P-10 and the injuries and Chet Ram could dangerous to their lives. Accused Joginder Singh and Inder Singh were also medically examined by Dr. Sood on 27th August, 1993 at about 12.30 PM and on their examination blood injuries were found on their person and the duration of those injuries were recent In the medico legal certificates Exts. DA and DB respectively the injuries on the persons of both these accused were found simple in nature. 18. Dr. Sood on 27th August, 1993 at about 12.30 PM and on their examination blood injuries were found on their person and the duration of those injuries were recent In the medico legal certificates Exts. DA and DB respectively the injuries on the persons of both these accused were found simple in nature. 18. Dr. Rajnish Pathania (PW-11) at the relevant time was posted as Senior Resident Doctor in the Department of Cardioa Thorasis and Vascular Surgery. P.G.I. Chandigarh. He treated injured Prem Singh on 27.8.1993 who remained admitted in P.G.I, w.e.f. 27.8.1993 to 6.9.1993 and issued medical certificate proforma Ext. PW-11/B. 19. Dr. H.C. Pathak (PW-10) is a Neuro Surgeon at P.G.I. Chandigarh. Dr. Pathak has given the detail of the condition of victim Chet Ram after the assault in his discharge slip Ext. PW-10/A containing 9 pages. Doctor Pathak also stated that after surgery was done on victim Chet Ram, the patient was shifted to his ward which is called "Trauma Ward". According to the version of the Doctor, injured Chet Ram remained in trauma and gained consciousness after surgical operation. 20. From the above said medical evidence it is clearly proved that in the fight the injured witnesses namely Chet Ram and Prem Singh received grievous injuries whereas Smt. Malti Devi and Smt Uma Devi had sustained simple injuries at the hands of the accused caused by them by Khilnas, the weapon of offence. Two accused namely Indar Singh and Joginder Singh also received some simple injuries which would also prove that scuffle had taken place between the accused and the complainant party and in that process all the accused inflicted grieous and simple injuries on the persons of the victims. The scuffle had taken place at a common place i.e. Water Tank which was constructed for the purpose of providing water for drinking and irrigation to the residents of the village and the accused persons had no exclusive right of taking water from the said tank to their personal use debarring the other residents of the village including the complainant party from using the water. The accused could not claim the right of private defence of the property and strong burden lies upon them to prove that they had the right of the private defence of the property which was not at all available to them and therefore, the plea of right of private defence of the property raised by the accused has to be straightway rejected. 21. Sh. Nand Lai (PW-6) resident of village Vakna, Sh. Lila Datt (PW-7) resident of village Tanyar and Sh. Baldev Singh, (PW-8) resident of village Vakna also deposed about taking place of the occurrence which otherwise was also not in dispute. PW Shri Nand Lai stated that victim Chet Ram after assault was lifted from his house to the road side because he was unable to walk whereas Smt. Malti Devi, mother of Chet Ram was lying on the varandah of the house. PW Shri Lila Datt is a witness of transportation of injured Chet Ram to District Hospital, Kandaghat who was in an unconscious condition smeared with blood. PW Shri Baldev Singh was testified that when victims Chet Ram and Prem Singh were taken to Govt. Hospital Kandaghat, the Doctor was present thee had advised that both the victims should be shifted to PGI, Chandigarh. 22. PW-Inspector Shri Garib Dass conducted the investigation of the case and recorded the statements of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act marked Exts.PF/1 to PF/4. On the basis of those statements Khilnas Exts. P-6 to P-10. were recovered at the instance of the accused. The disclosure statements had been recorded in the presence of PW Lekh Ram who testified their correctness in his deposition. The defence of the accused that Khilnas similar to those recovered by the Police were found in every house of the farmers in the village may be true, but still the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused were armed with Khilnas and the wounds inflicted on the persons of the victims were opined by Dr. Rakesh Sood having been inflicted by Khilnas Exts. P-6 to P-10. In this view of the matter, the plea of the accused that no statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by the Investigating officer cannot be accepted. From the perusal of the discharge certificate Ext.PW-1 I/A, it reveals that Dr. Rakesh Sood having been inflicted by Khilnas Exts. P-6 to P-10. In this view of the matter, the plea of the accused that no statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by the Investigating officer cannot be accepted. From the perusal of the discharge certificate Ext.PW-1 I/A, it reveals that Dr. Rajnish Pathania has noted that the injury on the persons of victim Prem Singh was said to have been caused by stick is not of any value unless the contents of the certificate have been proved by the prosecution nor the defence has cross-examined Dr. Pathania on this point. 23. There cannot be any dispute about the settled law that evidence of partisan witness must be scrutinized, with more than ordinary care but equally it is settled that the evidence of partisan witness must focus its attention on whether there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether the evidence strikes the court as genuine, and whether the story as narrated is probable and the judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence. (See Muthu Naicker and other etc. vs. State of Tamil Nandu, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1647. In the case on hand the evidence of all the victims and other independent witnesses discussed hereinabove is unblemish and is worthy of credence and no material discrepancies have been found in the evidence of the partisan witnesses to disbelieve and discredit their testimony. 24. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt as the prosecution witnesses have failed to explain the injuries found by the Doctor on the person of accused Indar Singh and Joginder Singh again cannot be accepted. To press this contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance in State ofRajasthan vs. Madho & Anr. 1991 CRI.L.J SC, 1343. In that case two accused persons Krishan and Madho had sustained grievous injuries on their skull region in the incident in which the parties had exchanged farsi blow against each other and in the facts of the case their Lordships held that it was for the prosecution witness to have explained the injury sustained by two accused. 25. In that case two accused persons Krishan and Madho had sustained grievous injuries on their skull region in the incident in which the parties had exchanged farsi blow against each other and in the facts of the case their Lordships held that it was for the prosecution witness to have explained the injury sustained by two accused. 25. But it is also equally law that if the accused persons have received some minor injuries in the incident, it is not always obliged to the prosecution to explain those injuries on the persons of the accused when it is proved on record that injuries suffered by the victims at the hands of the accused are more grave and serious caused with weapons. In Jagdish vs. State ofRajasthan, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1010, it was held asunder:- "It is true that where serious injuries are found on the persons of the accused, as a principle of appreciation of evidence, it becomes obligatory on the prosecution to explain the injuries, so as to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. But before this obligation is placed on the prosecution, two conditions must be satisfied; 1. that the injuries on the persons of the accused must be very serious and severe and not superficial; 2. that if must be shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. 26 On re-appraisal and re-examination of the entire evidence on record, it is proved that the accused were armed with Khilnas which they used for inflicting injuries on the victims and some of the injuries were found to be grievous in nature by the Doctor, whereas the complainant party was unarmed and all the victims had tried to defend themselves from unprovoked assault of the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge has meticulously analyzed the entire evidence on record and has rightly found the accused guilty of the offence charged for. The accused has taken law unto themselves and mercilessly assaulted the victims for no sound cause or fault. I find no fault with the findings and reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge to differ with and the accused have been rightly convicted and sentenced for the proven charges. 27. No other point has been urged by the learned Counsel on either side. 28. I find no fault with the findings and reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge to differ with and the accused have been rightly convicted and sentenced for the proven charges. 27. No other point has been urged by the learned Counsel on either side. 28. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. All the accused are on bail and their bail bonds are commenced. The accused persons shall surrender themselves before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan who shall commit them to prison to serve out the sentence awarded to them. In the event of the failure of the accused to surrender, the learned Sessions Judge, shall procedure their presence by issue of non-bailable warrants and then to commit them to prison as aforesaid. Appeal dismissed