Judgment S.S.Sudhalkar, J. 1. Petitioners were tried by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Taran Tarn and were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under sections 326, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as under :- Data Singh petitioner No.2 : U/s 326 IPC RI for one and half year and fine Rs.500/- or in default thereof further RI for 4 months. U/s 324/34 IPC RI for six months. U/s 323 IPC RI for six months. Sewa Singh petitioner No. 1: U/s 326/34 IPC RI for one year and a fine of Rs.250/- or in default of fine, further RI for 3 months. U/s 324 IPC RI for one year and fine Rs.250/- or in default of fine, further RI for three months. U/s 323 IPC RI for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that on 18.10.1980 at about 9 or 10 A.M., PW-1 Piara Singh was present on the culvert of the water course at Gharkawala along with his cattle when injured PW Atma Singh and Nirmal Singh passed by that way while going to village Mundapind for rendering services. When they were about one killa away from the culvert, petitioner Sewa Singh armed with a spear and petitioner Dara Singh armed with a gandasi came out from the bushes. Petitioner Sewa Singh exhorted that Atma Singh had abused his brother on the previous day without any reason and hence they had come to take revenge. Sewa Singh thereafter gave a spear blow to Atma Singh which hit on his right arm. Petitioner Dara Singh gave gandasi blows on the back side of the head of Atma Singh. Thereafter PW Piara Singh rushed to the spot. Sewa Singh with the Dang of his spear and Dara Singh with the reverse side of his gandasi gave seven more injuries on the back side and left ankle of Atma Singh, who fell down on the ground. Nirmal Singh raised alarm on which the petitioners fled away. 3. The defence version as given by the petitioners in their statements under sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was "it was stated by the accused that on the day of occurrence, accused Sewa Singh and Dara Singh were going to their fields. When they reached about one Kila away from the culvert, accused Atma Singh armed with a pistol came there raising exhortations. When they reached about one Kila away from the culvert, accused Atma Singh armed with a pistol came there raising exhortations. Atma Singh also abused the accused and, therefore, he fired a cartridge from his pistol. Thereafter, in self-defence, both the accused inflicted some injuries on the person of Atma Singh in self-defence to snatch the pistol from Atma Singh so as to prevent him from firing another-cartridge. The pistol and empty cartridge were produced before Sucha Singh Sarpanch and Harbans Singh, Member Panchayat, who accompanied by the accused took the same to Sarhali police station where the pistol and the cartridge were produced before ASI Mohinder Singh and a complaint was also lodged, upon which a case u/s 336 IPC and 25 Arms Act was registered against Atma Singh. Accused examined Sital Singh DW1 in their defence. 4. It is the case of the petitioners in their defence that Atma Singh had fired from his pistol though it is no bodys case that anyone was injured by the shot fired by Atma Singh. If Atma Singh was the assailant, he would have fired from the pistol without allowing the petitioners coming near him. Firing by Atma Singh is not held to be proved. Moreover, if Atma Singh had in fact fired after the petitioners went near him armed with weapons, it can be stated that the Atma Singh fired in self-defence. Thus the allegation of firing by Atma Singh does not help the petitioners. When there is a direct evidence of the eye witness, and the injured is also deposing against the petitioners, it is difficult to accept the bald story put forward by the petitioner. There appears to be no reason, therefore, to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the courts below. No illegality can be seen from the judgments of the courts below. Injuries to the injured have also been proved on record by corroborative evidence of the doctor. Amongst the injuries, injury No.9 also shows that it was an incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm on the back of the head and it was bone deep, and the outer table of skull was cut. This being the position, I do not find that there is any ground to interfere with the judgments of the courts below. In the result the revision petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. This being the position, I do not find that there is any ground to interfere with the judgments of the courts below. In the result the revision petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.