JUDGEMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath in Criminal Case No. 57-II of 2001 dated 27.10.2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 326 IPC and a fine of ! 500/-, simple imprisonment for one year under Section 325 IPC and a fine of ! 250/-, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC and a fine of !100/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The Criminal Appeal No. 26-B/X/2004 filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 27.10.2004 has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 27.5.2005 which has been assailed in the revision. 2.The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 Manoj Kumar lodged rapat No. 19 dated 30.1.2001 Ex.PW-1/A at Police Station Baijnath at 6.40 p.m. alleging therein that he had parked his taxi HP-01- 8495 at about 6.30 p.m. outside local bus stand. In the meantime, petitioner Himalu came there with his taxi HP-01-0491 and he parked his taxi outside the regular taxi line. On this, other taxi drivers asked PW-1 President of Local Taxi Union to ask petitioner to remove his taxi and park it properly. PW-1 asked the petitioner to park the taxi properly, this enraged him. The petitioner started abusing PW-1. The petitioner took out ‘Khukhari’ Ex.P-2 from his pocket and gave a blow with the same on the right hand wrist of PW-1, who was saved byPW-2 Sunil Kumar and Shesh Ram. On this, FIR Ex.PW-6/D was registered at Police Station, Baijnath. 3.The MLC Ex.PW-4/A of the injured was obtained, the following injuries were found:- 1.Oblique wound on the mid of left wrist joint dorsal aspect. Wound is 2.5 cm x muscle deep, having clean margin. Wound is bleeding. 2. Wound on the left wrist joint lateral aspect, extending to palm. Wound is 2.5 cm muscle deep on the lateral aspect of wrist joint with clean margin and then wound is extending 2.5 cm. muscle deep to the hypo-theirar muscle on the ventral aspect. Wound is bleeding. 3. 2.5 cm. x 2.5 cm abrasion on the lower end of right leg posteriorly. 4. Complained of numbness over 3-4-5 finger and metacarpal region. The injuries No.1, 2 and 4 were found grievous and injury No. 3 was found simple in nature. The site plan Ex.PW-7/A was prepared. Wound is bleeding. 3. 2.5 cm. x 2.5 cm abrasion on the lower end of right leg posteriorly. 4. Complained of numbness over 3-4-5 finger and metacarpal region. The injuries No.1, 2 and 4 were found grievous and injury No. 3 was found simple in nature. The site plan Ex.PW-7/A was prepared. Pant Ex.P-1 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/A. Khukhari Ex.P-2 was produced by the petitioner and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 326 IPC. The petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 326 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses, produced some documents. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. In defence the petitioner has examined three witnesses. On conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, hence revision. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S.Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence. There are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The petitioner sustained injuries vide MLC Ex.DW-1/A. The matter was reported to the police vide report Ex.DW-2/A. The injuries found on the person of the petitioner have not been explained. The recovery of ‘Khukhari’ Ex.P-2 is suspicious. The prosecution has not come forward with true story. The courts below have wrongly concluded that the petitioner was aggressor. The view taken by the two Courts below does not emerge from the evidence on record. The petitioner is entitled to acquittal. 5.The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that the case against the petitioner has been proved by oral and documentary evidence. The minor contradictions regarding recovery of ‘Khukhari’ Ex.P-2 are not so fundamental so as to disbelieve the prosecution case. The evidence led in defence establishes the presence of the petitioner on the spot. The Courts below on the basis of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that petitioner was aggressor. The injuries on the person of the complainant have been explained. The re- appreciation of evidence is not possible in revision. The evidence led in defence establishes the presence of the petitioner on the spot. The Courts below on the basis of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that petitioner was aggressor. The injuries on the person of the complainant have been explained. The re- appreciation of evidence is not possible in revision. The learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 6.PW-1 Manoj Kumar has supported the prosecution case. He has stated that petitioner parked his taxi in front of their taxies. The taxi drivers opposed the action of the petitioner. He went to the petitioner to park his taxi on one side. The petitioner came in rage. The petitioner came out of his taxi with ‘Khukhari’ and attacked him. He tried to save himself but blow of Khukhari landed on his left wrist causing severe injury by cutting three arteries of the fingers. Shesh Ram and Sunil Kumar caught hold the petitioner and the complainant was saved, many other persons gathered on the spot. He was taken to hospital. The police took into possession blood stained pant Ex.P-1 vide memo Ex.PW-1/A. The accused during investigation produced ‘Khukhari’ Ex.P­2 which was taken into possession vide Ex.PW-1/B. In cross- examination a positive suggestion has been given to this witness that a quarrel took place on the spot. He admitted that he is President of Taxi Union, Baijnath. He denied that on that date he and his companions gave beatings to Himalu for which the report was lodged with the police. Pant Ex.P-1 and Khukhari Ex.P-2 were sealed in the police station and both were produced to the police on the same day but sealed on second day. He denied that he sustained injury due to glass panes. 7.PW-2 Sunil Kumar has stated that on 30.1.2001 at 6.30 p.m. he and Shesh Ram were at bus stand, Baijnath. The taxi of Manoj Kumar was parked in line. The petitioner also brought his taxi and parked his taxi adjacent to the taxi of Manoj Kumar. Manoj Kumar asked the petitioner to park his taxi at proper place. On this, petitioner became angry, he came out of his taxi, took out khukhari from his pocket and gave a blow on the left wrist of Manoj Kumar. Both of them grappled, blood oozed out from the hand of Manoj Kumar and fell on his pant. Manoj Kumar asked the petitioner to park his taxi at proper place. On this, petitioner became angry, he came out of his taxi, took out khukhari from his pocket and gave a blow on the left wrist of Manoj Kumar. Both of them grappled, blood oozed out from the hand of Manoj Kumar and fell on his pant. He and Shesh Ram with difficulty saved Manoj Kumar from the clutches of the petitioner and took Khukhari under their control which was lateron handed over to police. Pant Ex.P-1 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/A and Khukhari Ex.P-2 was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. In cross-examination he has stated that he knew petitioner and Manoj Kumar before the occurrence. He does not know in the quarrel Himalu sustained injuries on his head. He and Shesh Ram caught hold Himalu and Manoj Kumar was running at that time. Pant and Khukhari were handed over to the police at that time only which was sealed by the police. He denied that they gave beatings to Himalu. He denied that Manoj sustained injuries during grappling from his own knife. 8.PW-3 Vijay Kumar was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the Prosecutor. In cross-examination, he has stated that Manoj Kumar gave pant to the police in his presence. He identified pant Ex.P-1. PW-4 Dr. Harjeet Singh has stated that on 30.1.2001 he examined Manoj Kumar and issued MLC Ex.PW-4/A. He has sated that injury No. 4 is in consequence of injuries No.1 and 2. The injuries No. 1 and 2 can be caused with the blow of Khukhari Ex.P-2. The injury No. 3 can be caused by fall or by dragging. In cross-examination, he has stated that injury No.1 can be caused if a person strikes with sharp edged broken glass. 9.PW-5 Dr. Bhanu Awasthi has stated that Manoj Kumar was referred on 31.1.2001 from Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur. The patient remained admitted in the hospital from 31.1.2001 to 7.2.2001 and he was discharged on 7.2.2001. The discharge slip is Ex.PW-5/A. PW-6 H.C. Krishan Kumar has proved report No. 19, the copy Ex. PW-6/A. He has also proved report No. 21 dated 30.1.2001 copy Ex. PW-6/B, he has also proved FIR Ex.PW-6/D. 10. The patient remained admitted in the hospital from 31.1.2001 to 7.2.2001 and he was discharged on 7.2.2001. The discharge slip is Ex.PW-5/A. PW-6 H.C. Krishan Kumar has proved report No. 19, the copy Ex. PW-6/A. He has also proved report No. 21 dated 30.1.2001 copy Ex. PW-6/B, he has also proved FIR Ex.PW-6/D. 10. PW-7 ASI Mool Raj has proved spot map Ex.PW-7/A. Manoj Kumar produced pant Ex.P-1 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/A. The petitioner produced Khukhari Ex.P-2 in the presence of Sunil Kumar and Shesh Ram which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has not joined any person as witness from the shops as at the time of occurrence the shops were closed. He denied that petitioner sustained any injury. He admitted the suggestion that petitioner produced the Khukhari to the police after he was arrested. PW-8 Om Parkash has stated that FIR Ex.PW-6/D is signed by him. 11. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case and has stated that he is innocent. The complainant is inimical to him. The complainant is taxi driver-cum-owner. DW-1 Dr. Harjeet Singh has stated that on 30.1.2001 he examined Himalu Ram and issued MLC Ex.DW-1/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that injuries mentioned in Ex.DW-1/A can be caused by fall on hard surface. DW-2 MHC Subhash Chand has proved copy of report No. 20 dated 30.1.2001 Ex.DW-2/A. 12. DW-3 Kulwinder Singh has stated that on 30.1.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. a quarrel took place in main bus stand Baijnath, 3-4 persons namely Manoj Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Vijay Kumar gave beatings to petitioner. He intervened and saved the petitioner from their clutches. He was director of wine traders. The petitioner was driver of their firm. He had not seen knife etc. in the hands of any one then said Manoj Kumar was holding a knife. There were injuries on the face and head of the petitioner. In cross-examination, he has stated that he reached there when fight was in progress, he doesn’t know what happened before that. He doesn’t know that Manoj Kumar had sustained injury on his hand with sharp edged weapon. He does not know that Manoj Kumar was taken by many persons to the hospital. 13. In cross-examination, he has stated that he reached there when fight was in progress, he doesn’t know what happened before that. He doesn’t know that Manoj Kumar had sustained injury on his hand with sharp edged weapon. He does not know that Manoj Kumar was taken by many persons to the hospital. 13. PW-1 Manoj Kumar complainant injured and PW-2 Sunil Kumar have proved that petitioner came out of taxi and attacked PW-1 with Khukhari, who sustained injuries on his left wrist. PW-4 Dr. Harjeet Singh has proved MLC Ex.PW-4/A of PW-1 and has stated that injuries No.1 and 2 can be caused with blow of Khukhari Ex.P-2. He has stated that injury No.4 is in consequence of injuries No.1 and 2. PW-1 remained admitted in the hospital from 3.1.2001 to 7.2.2001, the discharge slip of PW-1 is Ex.PW-5/A. It appears from the cross- examination of various prosecution witnesses by the defence that defence has not altogether denied the incident, rather it has been projected that some quarrel took place in which petitioner was given beatings and the complainant party was aggressor. PW-2 Sunil Kumar has been given suggestion in the defence that Manoj Kumar sustained injuries during grappling from his own knife. This indicates that the defence has not denied the quarrel. DW-3 Kulwinder Singh has even stated that Manoj Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Vijay Kumar gave beatings to petitioner on 30.1.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. It is thus clear that petitioner has not denied his presence at the relevant date and time and quarrel which took place. 14. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant party was aggressor and if while protecting himself some injuries have been caused to the complainant at the instance of petitioner in that case also the petitioner cannot be convicted and sentenced. It has been submitted that in the given situation the right of private defence cannot be measured in golden scales. It has been submitted that in the given situation the right of private defence cannot be measured in golden scales. Subramani and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 7 SCC 210 has been relied on the point that while it is true that in exercise of the right of private defence only such force may be used as may be necessary, but it is equally well settled that at a time when a person is faced with imminent peril of life and limb of himself or other, he is not expected to weigh in golden scales the precise force needed to repel the danger. Even if he, in the heat of the moment, carries his defence a little further than what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it. The question is whether the complainant party was the aggressor and right of private defence at all is available to the petitioner. 15. PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that PW-1 had asked the petitioner to park his taxi at proper place. On this, petitioner became angry, he attacked PW-1 with Khukhari and inflicted blow on his left wrist. It is not a case where PW-1 or the complainant party attacked the petitioner and in order to repel such attack the petitioner used right of private defence. PW-4 Dr. Harjeet Singh has again been examined as DW-1 by the defence and he has proved MLC Ex.DW-1/A of petitioner showing some simple injuries on his person regarding the incident on 30.1.2001. Ex.DW-2/A is the copy of report No.20 lodged at the instance of petitioner. In Ex.DW-2/A the petitioner has stated that Manoj Kumar and Sunil Kumar abused him and gave him beatings with kick and fist blows. There is nothing in Ex.DW-2/A that PW-1 or anybody else attacked petitioner with knife or any other deadly weapon. The statement of DW-3 that Manoj Kumar was holding a knife has not been corroborated from report Ex.DW-2/A which was lodged by the petitioner himself where there is no mention that the complainant or any other person attacked him with knife. 16. PW-2 Sunil Kumar has stated that petitioner took out Khukhari Ex.P-2 and gave a blow on the left wrist of Manoj Kumar. Both of them grappled, blood oozed out from the hand of Manoj Kumar and fell on his pant. 16. PW-2 Sunil Kumar has stated that petitioner took out Khukhari Ex.P-2 and gave a blow on the left wrist of Manoj Kumar. Both of them grappled, blood oozed out from the hand of Manoj Kumar and fell on his pant. He and Shesh Ram caught hold the petitioner and Manoj Kumar was running at that time. There is nothing on record that PW-1 or anyone from complainant side attacked the petitioner before petitioner gave khukhari blow on the wrist of PW-1. On the basis of material on record, it is not possible to return a finding that PW-1 alongwith anyone else were the aggressors. The two Courts below have rightly returned the finding that the petitioner was the aggressor and, therefore, he is not entitled to take the plea of right of private defence. Subramani (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that injuries on the person of petitioner have not been explained. It has come in evidence that grappling also took place at the time of incident. The possibility cannot be ruled out that during the process of grappling petitioner sustained injuries. DW-1 Dr. Harjeet Singh has stated that injuries mentioned in Ex.DW-1/A of petitioner can be caused by fall. Thus injuries on the person of petitioner stand explained. Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 has been relied in support of the submission by learned counsel for the petitioner that an accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on record. The standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of prosecution in criminal case is different. The prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is “preponderance of probabilities”. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. It has been submitted that recovery of Khukhari Ex.P-2 is suspicion. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. It has been submitted that recovery of Khukhari Ex.P-2 is suspicion. PW-1 has stated that accused during investigation produced Khukhari Ex.P-2 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. PW-2 Sunil Kumar has stated that Khukhari Ex.P-2 was handed over by him to the police. PW-7 has stated that Khukhari Ex.P-2 was produced by the petitioner in presence of Sunil Kumar and Shesh Ram and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. 18. There are some variations in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the recovery of Khukhari Ex.P-2. But this discrepancy is not so fundamental to reject the prosecution case. There is positive oral evidence that petitioner attacked PW-1 with Khukhari Ex.P-2. The defence has given suggestion to PW-7 ASI Mool Raj which he admitted that the petitioner produced Khukhari to the police after he was arrested. This positive suggestion of the defence to PW-7 clarifies the mist that petitioner himself produced Khukhari after he was arrested. Therefore, the defence cannot take any benefit of variation in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the recovery of Khukhari Ex.P-2. 19. The petitioner has sustained some injuries as per his MLC Ex.DW-1/A. It has been submitted that prosecution has not made any attempt to explain the injuries found on the person of the petitioner. This indicates that prosecution has concealed some material facts and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. In Krishan and others vs. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 459 it has been held that it is well settled that merely because prosecution has failed to explain injuries of the accused, the same cannot be a solitary ground for doubting the prosecution case, if otherwise, evidence relied upon is found to be credible. 20. In the case in hand the prosecution by leading cogent evidence has proved that petitioner inflicted injuries on the person of PW-1 by leading cogent and reliable evidence. It is nobody’s case that these injuries are self inflicted. The occurrence took place at about 6.30 p.m. on 30.1.2001 and the matter was reported to the police at about 6.40 p.m. in which petitioner has been named. It is nobody’s case that these injuries are self inflicted. The occurrence took place at about 6.30 p.m. on 30.1.2001 and the matter was reported to the police at about 6.40 p.m. in which petitioner has been named. There is no reason that PW-1 injured would implicate a person who has not committed offence and leave out a person, who has actually committed an offence. In revision, the scope of interference is limited as held in State of Kerala vs. Puttumanaillath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452 and Raj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2000 (2) Shim. L. C. 422. The view taken by the two Courts below emerges from the evidence on record. The petitioner has failed to make out a case that impugned judgment is perverse. There is no merit in the revision. 21. In view of above discussion, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender to serve out the sentence imposed and his bail bonds are cancelled.