JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions trial No. 14-G/VII of 2003 titled State of H.P. vs. Gulzar @ Gulzari and others. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 15.5.2002 at about 7.30 PM at Dhwala accused persons in furtherance of common intention assaulted Amarjeet Singh JE and Devinder Singh Foreman HPSEB Section Dhwala when they were discharging their official duty as public servants. It is alleged by prosecution that on the same date time and place accused persons caused grievous hurt to Amarjeet Singh JE and Devinder Singh Foreman HPSEB Section Dhwala when they were discharging their official duty as public servants. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons took the electricity connection from the residential house to the wine shop in illegal manner. It is further alleged by prosecution that injured Amarjeet Singh registered FIR Ext.PW4/A and during investigation broken pieces of bottle Ext.P1 took into possession vide seizure memo and it is further alleged by prosecution that pieces of electrical wire also took into possession vide seizure memo. It is further alleged by prosecution that during investigation vehicle No. HP-36-5786 was also took into possession vide seizure memo and spot map was also prepared at the spot. It is further alleged by prosecution that appointment and posting orders of injured also took into possession. 3. Accused persons were charged by learned Sessions Judge Court No. II Kangra at Dharamshala on dated 22.5.2004 under Sections 353 read with Section 34 IPC, 332 read with Section 34 IPC and 333 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 39 of the Electricity Act. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case :- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Dr. Puran Chand PW2 Dr. Arun Sharma PW3 Dr. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case :- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Dr. Puran Chand PW2 Dr. Arun Sharma PW3 Dr. Suman Dhiman PW4 Amarjeet Singh PW5 Devinder Singh PW6 Kikkar Singh PW7 Vinod Kumar PW8 Sarveen Kumar PW9 C.S. Chawla PW10 Inspector Daulat Ram DW1 Kamal Kis hore 4.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in su pport of its case :- Sr.No. Description: Ex.PW1 /A. MLC of Amarjit Singh Ex.PW2 /A. MLC of Devinder Singh Ex.PW3/A X-ray form Ex.PW3 /B Skigram of Amarjit Singh Ex.PW3 /C Skigram of Devinder Singh Ex.PW3 /D Skigram of Devinder Singh Ex.PW4/A FIR Ex.PW7 /A Seizure memo Ex.PW7/B Seizure memo Ext.PW8 /A. Seizure memo Ex t.PW9/A Appointment and posting order of Amarjit Singh Ext.PW9/B Appointment and posting order of Devinder Singh Ex.PW9/C Photocopy of appointment of Amarjit Singh Ext.PW9/D Photocopy of appointment of Devinder Singh Ext.PW9/E Letter Ext.DX Application Ext.PW10/B Application Ext.PW10/C Application Ext.PW10/B Spot map 5. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have produced one witness in defence. Learned trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charges framed against them. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Trial Court State of H.P. filed present appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of H.P. and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Question that arises in present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9.1. PW1 Dr. Puran Chand has stated that in the year 2002 he remained posted in Sub Division Hospital Dehra and on dated 15.5.2002 he examined one Amarjeet Singh injured son of Gian Singh aged 49 years resident of village and P.O. Chalor Tehsil Dehra District Kangra. He has further stated that on his medical examination he found following injuries. PW1 Dr. Puran Chand has stated that in the year 2002 he remained posted in Sub Division Hospital Dehra and on dated 15.5.2002 he examined one Amarjeet Singh injured son of Gian Singh aged 49 years resident of village and P.O. Chalor Tehsil Dehra District Kangra. He has further stated that on his medical examination he found following injuries. (1) Lacerated injury 2 cm x ¼ x ¼ cm on dorsoming of right food covered with blood. (2) Bruise red in colour 3 cm x 3 cm on neck left side. (3) Subconjunctival hemorrhage present in eyes both sides red in colour. (4) Complaint of pain on left side of nose. Tenderness was present. (5) Patient complained of pain in upper part of chest on right side. Tenderness present in upper half on chest on right side. He has stated that he has advised for X-ray of chest for ribs. He has stated that on the next date i.e. 16.5.2002 X-ray report was received and found injury No. 5 grievous. He has stated that injury Nos. 1 and 4 were simple and nature of weapon used was blunt and probable duration of injuries was 24 hours. He has identified injured Amarjeet Singh in Court. He has stated that he issued MLC Ext.PW1/A which is in his hand and bears his signatures. He has stated that injuries mentioned in Ext.PW1/A could be caused by kick and fist blows as well as by unbroken bottle. He has stated that injuries mentioned in MLC Ext.PW1/A could be caused in a mob fight. He has stated that injury could also be caused in multiple falls. 9.2 PW2 Dr. Arun Sharma has stated that in the year 2002 he remained posted in Sub Division Hospital Dehra and on dated 16.5.2002 he medically examined one Devinder Singh son of Raghunath Singh aged 43 years. He has stated that there was alleged history of assault on 15.5.2002 and on his medical examination he observed following injuries. (1) 1 cm x 1 cm contusion bluish tender swelling with irregular superficial pinkish abrasion on the left clavicle and upper aspect of shoulder joint left side. Movements of upper limb were limited and painful. He advised X-ray left shoulder joint plus upper chest including left clavicle bone A, O and lateral view possible. (2) 12 x 10 cm bluish pink contusion on back of upper third of left forearm. Movements of upper limb were limited and painful. He advised X-ray left shoulder joint plus upper chest including left clavicle bone A, O and lateral view possible. (2) 12 x 10 cm bluish pink contusion on back of upper third of left forearm. (3) Pink contusion five in numbers on left upper back varying in sixes from 15 cm x 5 cm to 5 cm x 2.5 cm with linear inner whitest streaks. (4) 15 cm x 10 cm rectangular in shape contusion pink in colour with central whitest streak on back of middle of left leg calf muscle. (5) Complained of pain left leg and middle finger no external injury seen. (6) 1 cm x 1 cm irregular abrasion blackish with clotted blood present on left forearm. (7) 10 cm x 1 cm pink brown contusion placed longitudinally on back of left forearm. (8) 8 cm x 1 cm similar contusion 2 cm was adjacent to injury No.7. He has stated that all injuries except injury No. 1 were found simple in nature and for injury No.1 opinion was deferred for X-ray report. He has stated that after perusal of X-ray report injury No.1 was found to be grievous and weapon used was blunt. He has stated that probable duration of injury was 24 hours. He has stated that he issued MLC Ext.PW2/A which is in his hand and signatures. He has further stated that injury mentioned in MLC Ext.PW2/A could be caused by kick and fist blows as well as by blows of unbroken bottles. He identified injured in Court and he has stated that he issued MLC Ext.PW2/A. He has stated that injury mentioned in Ext.PW2/A could be caused by way of fall. He has denied suggestion that patient took the liquor. He has denied suggestion that he examined injured on the previous day during night time, but has mentioned time of examination of injured on next morning because injured had consumed liquor. 9.3 PW3 Dr. Suman Dhiman Radiologist has stated that she is posted as Radiologist since September 1998 and on dated 1.5.2002 one Amarjeet Singh and one Devinder Singh were referred by the concerned doctors and she opined that there was fracture of fourth rib on left side of Amarjeet Singh as per opinion Ext.PW3/A. She has stated that she has also observed that injured Devinder Singh had also sustained fracture in left clavicle. 9.4 PW4 Amarjeet Singh injured has stated that in the year 2002 he was posted as Junior Engineer Dhwala under Sub Division Dehra and he was on government duty on 15.5.2002. He has stated that on dated 15.5.2002 he was accompanied by Devinder Singh Foreman for routine checkup of electricity line and when he arrived at Dhwala at about 7.30 PM he found that electricity was in the shop of liquor vend where salesman Nanak Chand was sitting along with Gulzari and other persons. He has stated that he inquired from them that how the electricity was in the wine shop without installation of meter. He has stated that thereafter above said persons disclosed that electricity connection for wine shop took from the residential house. He has stated that there were different charges for domestic electricity consumption and commercial electricity connection and he directed to disconnect illegal electricity connection of wine shop. He has stated that he directed the Foreman Devinder Kumar to disconnect the illegal electricity connection of wine shop. He has stated that thereafter Devinder Singh Foreman went towards residential premises to disconnect the illegal electricity connection of wine shop and thereafter all accused persons pounced upon him and gave him kick and fist blows and had also given blows of unbroken bottles. He has stated that he sustained injuries on different parts of body. He has stated that Nanak Chand, Gulzari hit him through bottles and further stated that Parveen and other persons hit him with kick and fist blows. He has stated that accused also dragged him towards the utility vehicle when he raised hue and cry. He has stated that Devinder Singh injured was also beaten by accused persons. He has stated that Kikker Singh shopkeeper came at the spot to rescue him. He has stated that thereafter he lodged FIR Ext.PW4/A which was signed by him in encircled portion A. He has stated that he remained under treatment for about two months. He has stated that he was on duty when alleged occurrence took place. He has stated that he was obstructed from discharging his official duty. He has denied suggestion that he is one of the accused for setting the wine shop on fire. He has stated that his mother, massi (mother’s sister) and son of mother’s sister were released on bail from the Court. He has stated that he was obstructed from discharging his official duty. He has denied suggestion that he is one of the accused for setting the wine shop on fire. He has stated that his mother, massi (mother’s sister) and son of mother’s sister were released on bail from the Court. He has denied suggestion that many times he has served with departmental notice for creating nuisance. He has stated that he could not state that owner of the wine shop had filed a complaint against the Women Organization when the wine shop was attacked by members of woman organization. He has denied suggestion that there are about 2000-3000 inhabitants near the wine shop. He has stated that he did not record the statement of owner of house from where illegal electricity connection was obtained for the wine shop and further stated that he did not issue any notice to the owner of house from where illegal connection of electricity obtained. He has denied suggestion that local people were opposing the opening of wine shop. He admitted that his mother is member of women organization. He has stated that he could not state that 5-6 members of women organization have set the wine shop on fire. He has denied suggestion that he and Devinder Singh Foreman accompanied by 5-6 persons have provoked the mob to set the wine shop on fire. He has denied suggestion that some persons interfered in the wine shop and he implicated the accused persons falsely to save his mother from counter criminal case. 9.5 PW5 Devinder Singh has stated that he was posted as Foreman in the electricity department since 1997 and further stated that he used to remain on duty round the clock. He has stated that on dated 15.5.2002 he accompanied JE Amarjeet Singh on routine checking of electricity line and when they reached at Dhwala at 7.30 PM they found illegal electricity connection in the wine shop. He has stated that JE and he observed that electricity connection was unauthorizedly obtained to the wine shop from the residential premises and he has further stated that when he went to the residential premises to disconnect the illegal electricity connection from wine shop then electricity wires were snatched by the owner of residential house and electricity of wine shop went off. He has stated that in the meanwhile he saw that JE who was standing near the wine shop was assaulted by the accused persons and when he came nearby JE he was also beaten by accused persons and he also sustained injuries as a result of beatings given by accused persons. He has stated that he sustained injuries upon his shoulder, arms, chest, legs and head. He has stated that he was hit by blows of sticks, rod and unbroken bottle. He identified all accused persons in Court and further stated that above said persons inflicted injuries on his person with iron rod and unbroken bottle. He has stated that accused persons disclosed their names as Parveen and Nanak Chand. He has stated that injured were saved by Kikker Singh and adjoining persons who came at the spot. He has stated that all accused persons were dragging JE Amarjeet Singh towards the parked Utility vehicle. He has stated that he remained under medical treatment for about one year. He has stated that he was prevented from discharging his official duty. He has admitted that it was published in the newspaper that wine shop was set on fire. He has stated that he does not know that local women organization was opposing the opening of wine shop. He has stated that he was directed by Amarjeet Singh to disconnect the illegal electricity connection of wine shop. He has stated that their office was at a distance of 500-600 metres from the wine shop. He has stated that there were two shops and one house nearby the wine shop. He has denied suggestion that mother and other relatives of Amarjeet Singh were implicated as accused in a criminal case for setting on fire the wine shop. He has denied suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in present case. He has denied suggestion that he and Amarjeet Singh have sustained injuries from a mob attack. 9.6 PW6 Kikker Singh has stated that he is running a shop at village Dhwala which is at a distance of about 15 metres from wine shop and on dated 15.5.2002 when he was sitting in the shop at about 7.30 PM he heard the noise coming from the wine shop and he immediately went to the wine shop. He has stated that he found that JE Amarjeet Singh was beaten by accused persons. He has stated that he found that JE Amarjeet Singh was beaten by accused persons. He has stated that he saw that JE Amarjeet Singh was beaten by salesman of wine contractor and he identified the accused persons present in Court and he disclosed the name of co-accused as Nanak. He has stated that in the meanwhile Foreman Devinder Singh also came at the spot who tried to rescue Amarjeet Singh from accused persons and further stated that accused persons have given beatings to Amarjeet Singh and Devinder Singh with fist and kicks and blood was oozing out from face of JE. He has also stated that accused persons dragged Amarjeet Singh injured towards the parked vehicle. He has admitted that wine shop was set on fire by people and same was published in the newspaper. He has denied suggestion that Amarjeet Singh and Devinder Singh were consuming liquor throughout the day in the market on dated 15.5.2002. He has stated that when he went to the spot the electricity of the shop was off and there was no darkness outside as there was natural light having summer season. He has stated that he does not know that mother of Amarjeet Singh JE and his relatives were implicated as co-accused in some criminal case relating to setting the wine shop on fire. He has denied suggestion that MLA namely Dhawala had reached in police station. He has denied suggestion that Amarjeet Singh used to take wine daily. He has denied suggestion that Amarjeet Singh and others attacked the wine shop. 9.7 PW7 Vinod Kumar has stated that on dated 16.5.2002 he was associated by the police during investigation. He has stated that in his presence police took into possession pieces of broken bottle lying on the ground vide seizure memo Ext.PW7/A. He has stated that police also took into possession two pieces of electrical wire which were put into clothes vide seizure memo Ext.PW7/B. He has stated that pieces of electrical wire were in the length of 41-42 feet. He has stated that pieces of bottles are Ext.P1 and same were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW4/A. He has stated that pieces of electrical wire are Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 and same were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW7/B. He has stated that he used to ply the taxi and distance from his house to village Dhwala is 4 K.M. 9.8 PW8 Sarveen Kumar has stated that he used to ply taxi and on dated 16.5.2002 he was associated by police during investigation and pieces of broken bottles were took into possession from the wine shop vide seizure memo Ext.PW7/A and he has stated that police also took into possession two pieces of electrical wire in the length of 41-42 feet vide seizure memo Ext.PW7/B. he has stated that broken pieces are Ext.P1 and pieces of electrical wire are Ext.P2 and Ext.P3. He has stated that police also took into possession the utility vehicle along with documents vide seizure memo Ext.PW8/A. He has denied suggestion that he was interrogated by Investigating Agency. He has also denied suggestion that he was impleaded as co-accused in criminal case qua setting the wine shop on fire. He has stated that Amarjeet Singh and Devinder Singh used to take wine from the wine shop on the day of incident. He has stated that he could not say that these persons thereafter provoked the mob and damaged the property of wine shop by setting on fire. 9.9 PW9 C.S. Chawala has stated that he is posted as SDO at Dehra since 27.8.2004. He has stated that before his posting Subhash Chand was posted there who has since retired. He has stated that he has brought the summoned record and further stated that appointment and posting orders of Amarjeet Singh injured are Ext.PW9/A and Ext.PW9/B and appointment and posting orders of Devinder Singh Foreman injured are Ext.PW9/C and Ext.PW9/D and same are correct as per original record. 9.10 PW10 Inspector Daulat Ram has stated that in the year 2002 he remained posted as SHO P.S. Dehra and on dated 15.5.2002 JE Amarjeet Singh Electricity Sub Division Dehra came to police station at 9.15 PM and on his statement FIR Ext.PW4/A was registered. He has stated that Amarjeet Singh was injured and he was sent for his medical examination and MLC was procured. He has stated that Amarjeet Singh was injured and he was sent for his medical examination and MLC was procured. He has stated that injured Devinder Singh Foreman was also medically examined and his MLC was obtained. He has stated that on dated 16.5.2002 he visited the spot and prepared spot map Ext.PW10/D including marginal notes. He has stated that he also took into possession broken pieces of wine bottles vide seizure memo and also took into possession electrical wire Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 and he recorded statements of prosecution witnesses as per their versions. He has further stated that he obtained the posting order of JE as well as of Foreman. He has stated that he also took into possession vehicle No. HP-36-5786 along with documents vide seizure memo Ext.PW8/A. He has stated that he prepared final report. He has admitted that FIR was registered for setting the wine shop on fire against some ladies who were related to Amarjeet Singh. He has stated that photographs of burnt shop were also took into possession. He has denied suggestion that FIR for setting the wine shop on fire was registered as per statement of Gulzar. He has stated that he does not know that injured salesman of wine shop was sent for medical examination. He has admitted that wine shop was also damaged badly. He has denied suggestion that Gulzar being owner of wine shop has been falsely implicated in present case. 10. Statements of accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons have stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in present case. Accused persons also adduced defence evidence. 11. DW1 Kamal Kishore has stated that in the year 2002 he was working with accused Gulzar at village Dhwala and he used to reside in the house of his uncle at village Dhwala. He has stated that on dated 15.5.2002 at about 6/6.30 PM women came in front of wine shop raising slogans and there were about 25-30 women. He has stated that one JE Amarjeet Singh and Devinder came and demanded wine. He has stated that in the meantime women started pelting stones upon wine shop and scuffle took place. He has stated that thereafter JE asked the other persons to remove the electrical wire from the wine shop which was removed. He has stated that one JE Amarjeet Singh and Devinder came and demanded wine. He has stated that in the meantime women started pelting stones upon wine shop and scuffle took place. He has stated that thereafter JE asked the other persons to remove the electrical wire from the wine shop which was removed. He has stated that thereafter at about 7.30 PM the wine shop was set on fire. He has stated that he does not know who set the wine shop on fire. He has stated that thereafter he went out from the wine shop and informed Gulzar. He has denied suggestion that he was not present at the spot on dated 15.5.2002. 12. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sections 353 read with Section 34, 332 read with Section 34 and 333 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 39 of Electricity Act is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. It is the case of prosecution that incident took place on dated 15.5.2002 at about 7.30 PM at Dhwala in the wine shop. It is the case of prosecution that injured JE namely Amarjeet Singh and injured Foreman namely Devinder Singh were on public duty at the time of alleged incident at 7.30 PM and accused persons have voluntarily caused grievous hurt to injured Amarjeet Singh JE and Devinder Foreman. It is well settled law that official duty hours in the government offices are from 10 AM to 5 PM. It is also well settled law that after office hours special duty of public servant is assigned by office order issued by the competent authority. Prosecution did not place on record any office order from the competent authority in order to prove that Amarjeet Singh injured and Devinder Singh injured were directed to perform their official duty after office hours. Prosecution has only placed on record posting order. We are of the opinion that posting order placed on record relating to injured Amarjeet Singh JE and Devinder Singh Foreman are not sufficient to hold that they were directed to perform night duty after office hours. Prosecution has only placed on record posting order. We are of the opinion that posting order placed on record relating to injured Amarjeet Singh JE and Devinder Singh Foreman are not sufficient to hold that they were directed to perform night duty after office hours. In order to convict the accused under Sections 353, 332 and 333 IPC it is essential to prove that public servants were discharging their official duty at the time when they sustained injuries. Prosecution did not place on record the duty chart of injured Amarjeet Singh and Devinder Singh on record in order to prove that they were directed by the competent authority of law to discharge their official duty at 7.30 PM at the time of incident. It was held in case reported in AIR 1979 SC 1706 titled Manumiya vs. State of Gujarat that Section 333 of Indian Penal Code will be attracted only when the public servant was acting in discharge of his duty. In absence of duty chart on record in present case qua Amarjeet Singh JE and Devinder Singh Foreman during night period at 7.30 PM it is held that offence punishable under Section 353, 332 and 333 read with Section 34 IPC is not proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that minor offence under Section 325 IPC is proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW4 injured Amarjeet Singh JE and PW5 injured Devinder Singh Foreman and in view of testimony of independent witness PW6 Kikkar Singh and in view of testimonies of PW1 Dr. Puran Chand, PW2 Dr. Arun Sharma and PW3 Dr. Suman Dhiman and in view of medical evidence placed on record and accused persons be convicted for minor offence punishable under Section 325 IPC as per provision of Section 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. (a) Minor offence under Section 325 IPC proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW4 injured Amarjeet Singh 13.1 We have carefully perused the testimony of PW4 Amarjeet Singh injured. It is well settled law that testimony of a witness should be read as a whole and not to be read in isolation. We have perused testimony of PW4 injured Amarjeet Singh carefully as a whole. It is well settled law that testimony of a witness should be read as a whole and not to be read in isolation. We have perused testimony of PW4 injured Amarjeet Singh carefully as a whole. PW4 injured Amarjeet Singh has stated in positive manner that when he was standing near the counter of wine shop all accused persons pounced upon him and have given him kick and fist blows and have also given blows with unbroken bottles. PW4 has stated in positive manner that he sustained injuries on different parts of the body. He has also stated that thereafter accused dragged him towards Utility vehicle parked there and when they raised hue and cry Devinder Foreman came. He has stated in positive manner that thereafter accused persons also beaten Devinder Singh. PW4 has stated in positive manner that thereafter one independent witness Kikker Singh also came at the spot to rescue him. Testimony of PW4 is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW4. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW4 that accused persons have inflicted grievous injuries on the body of injured. (b) Minor offence against accused persons proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of injured PW5 Devinder Singh 13.2 We have carefully perused the testimony of PW5 Devinder Singh. PW5 Devinder Singh has stated in positive manner that accused persons have beaten him with blows, iron rod as well as with unbroken bottles. PW5 has stated in positive manner that all accused persons were dragging JE Amarjeet Singh towards the parked Utility vehicle. Testimony of PW5 Devinder Singh is also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 Devinder Singh in present case. (c) Minor offender under Section 325 IPC proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons as per testimony of PW6 Kikker Singh 13.3 We have carefully perused the testimony of PW6 Kikker Singh who is eye witness of incident. PW6 has stated in positive manner that he was sitting in his shop at about 7.30 PM on dated 15.5.2002. He has stated that he heard the noise coming from the wine shop and thereafter he immediately went towards the wine shop. He has stated in positive manner that he saw that JE Amarjeet Singh was beaten by accused persons. PW6 has stated in positive manner that he was sitting in his shop at about 7.30 PM on dated 15.5.2002. He has stated that he heard the noise coming from the wine shop and thereafter he immediately went towards the wine shop. He has stated in positive manner that he saw that JE Amarjeet Singh was beaten by accused persons. He has further stated that in the meanwhile Foreman Devinder Singh came there who tried to rescue Amarjeet Singh from clutches of accused. He has stated in positive manner that accused persons were giving beatings to Amarjeet Singh and Devinder Singh with kick and fist blows and blood was oozing out from the face of JE. He has stated in positive manner that accused persons were dragging Amarjeet Singh towards parked vehicle. Testimony of PW6 is also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW6 Kikker Singh. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW6 has hostile animus against the accused at any point of time prior to the incident or after the incident. (d) Minor offence under Section 325 IPC proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons as per testimonies of medical officers 13.4 PW1 Dr. Puran Chand, PW2 Dr. Arun Sharma and PW3 Dr. Suman Dhiman medical officers appeared to prove the prosecution case. PW1 Dr. Puran Chand has stated in positive manner that he personally examined injured Amarjeet Singh and he found that injured Amarjeet Singh had sustained injuries. He has stated that injury No. 5 was grievous in nature and injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were simple in nature. PW2 Dr. Arun Sharma has stated that he had personally examined injured Devinder Singh and further stated that injured Devidner Singh had sustained eight injures on his body as mentioned in MLC. He has stated that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature. PW3 Dr. Suman Dhiman Radiologist has also stated in positive manner that Amarjeet Singh injured had sustained fracture of fourth right on left side and she has proved her opinion Ext.PW3/A. She has stated in positive manner that Devinder Singh injured had sustained fracture of left clavicle. Testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 3 are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve testimonies of PWs 1 to 3. Testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 3 are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve testimonies of PWs 1 to 3. There is no evidence on record that PWs 1 to 3 have hostile animus against the accused persons prior to the incident or after the incident. (e) Minor offence under Section 325 IPC is proved against the accused persons as per medical certificates Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW3/A 13.5 We have carefully perused the medical certificates Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW3/A placed on record. As per medical certificate Ext.PW1/A placed on record Amarjeet Singh had sustained five injuries upon his body and injury No. 5 was grievous in nature. As per medical certificate Ext.PW2/A Devinder Singh had sustained eight injuries upon his body and injury No.1 was grievous in nature. As per X-ray report placed on record injured Amarjeet Singh and Devinder Singh had sustained grievous injuries upon their bodies. (f) Minor offence under Section 325 IPC proved against the accused persons as per corroborative evidence 13.6 Seizure memo of pieces of broken bottles which were lying on the ground proved on record as per testimonies of PW7 Vinod Kumar and PW8 Sarveen Kumar. Even seizure memo of Utility vehicle No. HP-36-5786 also proved as per testimony of PW8 Sarveen Kumar. PW7 Vinod Kumar and PW8 Sarveen Kumar have stated in positive manner when they appeared in witness box that pieces of bottles and pieces of electrical wire measuring 41-42 feet in length were recovered from the place of incident in their presence. Testimonies of corroborative witnesses also inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW7 and PW8. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that identity of accused is not proved on record by way of identification parade and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case injured persons and independent witness have identified the accused persons in Court. Court is of the opinion that non-identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution in present case in view of the fact that eye witnesses namely PW4 Amarjeet Singh, PW5 Devinder Singh and PW6 Kikker Singh have identified accused persons in Court. It is well settled law that identification parade is not mandatory in all criminal cases. 15. Court is of the opinion that non-identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution in present case in view of the fact that eye witnesses namely PW4 Amarjeet Singh, PW5 Devinder Singh and PW6 Kikker Singh have identified accused persons in Court. It is well settled law that identification parade is not mandatory in all criminal cases. 15. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that there was dark and there was no light and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Independent witness namely PW6 Kikker Singh has stated in positive manner that there was natural light at the time of incident and it is well settled law that in presence of natural light identification of accused persons could be ascertained. The fact that there was natural light at the time of incident is proved by way of testimony of PW6 Kikker Singh. Testimony of PW6 Kikker Singh that there was natural light at the time of incident is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW6 Kikker Singh. There is no evidence on record that Kikker Singh has hostile animus against the accused at any point of time. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that wine shop was set on fire by a women organization in which mother and other relatives of PW4 Amarjeet Singh JE were also co-accused and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case complaint against accused persons was not filed by mother and other relatives of complainant but in present case complaint has been filed by Amarjeet Singh and Devinder Singh injured and accused did not place on record any evidence in order to prove that injured Amarjeet Singh and injured Devinder Singh are co-accused in counter FIR filed by accused persons relating to setting the wine shop on fire by a women organization. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that there is material contradiction in testimonies of prosecution witnesses and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that there is material contradiction in testimonies of prosecution witnesses and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Accused persons did not point out any material contradiction which goes to the root of the case. In present case incident took place on dated 15.5.2002 at 7.30 PM at Dhwala and testimonies of prosecution witnesses were recorded on dated 7.8.2006, 17.8.2006, 18.8.2006 after a lapse of four years. It is held that when testimony of prosecution witness is recorded after four years minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal case. It is also well settled law that concept of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal cases. (See AIR 1980 SC 957 titled Bhee Ram vs. State of Haryana. See AIR 1971 SC 2505 titled Raisingh vs. State of Haryana.) It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1328 titled Dalbir Singh vs. State that there is no hard and fast rule for appreciation of evidence and each case has to be decided on facts as they proved in particular case. 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that conviction cannot be sustained under Section 325 IPC upon testimonies of PW4 Amarjeet Singh PW5 Devinder Singh, PW6 Kikker Singh, PW1 Dr. Puran Chand, PW2 Arun Sharma and PW3 Dr. Suman Dhiman is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that conviction can be based on honest and trustworthy evidence even of a single witness in criminal case. (See AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose vs. The State of Kerala See AIR 1957 SC 614 titled Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras. See AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) It was held in case reported in Latest HLJ 2003(1) (H.P.) 542 titled State of H.P. vs. Om Parkash and others that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of injured if it inspires confidence of Court. In present case testimonies of injured persons namely PW4 Amarjeet Singh and PW5 Devinder Singh are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. 19. In present case testimonies of injured persons namely PW4 Amarjeet Singh and PW5 Devinder Singh are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. 19. In view of above stated facts we hold that prosecution did not prove the criminal offence against accused persons under Sections 353, 332, 333 read with Section 34 IPC and we hold that prosecution proved the commission of minor offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. We convict all accused persons for minor offence under Section 325 IPC and we modify the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court. We convict accused persons for minor offence as per provision of Section 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Now convicted be heard on quantum of sentence qua offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. Let non-bailable warrants be issued against the convicted persons and convicted persons be produced before us on__________________.