JUDGMENT: P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala HP in Sessions trial No. 5 of 2008 titled State of HP Vs. Roma Devi decided on 24.7.2008. BRIEF FACTS OF PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 14.10.2006 complainant Megh Nath had gone to his land to cut grass along with his brother Bhupinder Pal and Champa Devi at about 9.30 AM. It is further alleged by prosecution that when they were cutting grass accused came at the spot with sickle in his hand. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused picked up stone in his hand and threw the same at Megh Nath injured which hit his left arm. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused attacked upon injured Megh Nath and inflicted injury on the left side of his forehead with sickle Ext P5 and blood started oozing out from wound. It is further alleged by prosecution that clothes of injured Megh Nath i.e. shirt and towel were stained with blood and injured Megh Nath became unconscious for about 8 to 10 minutes. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter injured Megh Nath was brought to road side and thereafter Megh Nath was brought to police station Baijnath by his son Vijay Sharma in a vehicle and thereafter FIR Ext PW1/A was recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that injured Megh Nath was sent to civil hospital Baijnath for medical examination and as per medical examination injured had sustained four injuries on his person. It is further alleged by prosecution that MLC is Ext PW8/A. It is further alleged by prosecution that injured Megh Nath was got X-ray vide skigrams Ext PW8/A1 and Ext PW8/A2. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per opinion of medical officer injury No.1 could be possible with sickle Ext P5 and other injuries could be possible with stones. It is further alleged by prosecution that injury No.1 was fatal. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per opinion of medical officer injury No.1 could be possible with sickle Ext P5 and other injuries could be possible with stones. It is further alleged by prosecution that injury No.1 was fatal. It is further alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext PW9/A was prepared and blood stained earth and grass Ext.P1 along with stone Ext P2 took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that blood stained shirt Ext P3 of injured Megh Nath and towel Ext P4 took into possession by police officials vide seizure memo Ext PW1/C. It is further alleged by prosecution that disclosure statement of accused Ext PW2/A was recorded and sickle Ext P5 recovered from cow shed. It is further alleged by prosecution that sickle Ext P5 took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/E. Charge framed against accused by learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala on dated 29.8.2007 under sections 323 and 307 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined nine oral witnesses in support of its case and also produced documentary evidence. 4. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused has stated that she is innocent and false case was planted against her due to enmity and in connivance with police officials. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court State filed present appeal. 6. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent and also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal: (1) Whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court committed miscarriage of justice to appellant as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?. (2) Final order. Finding on point No.1 with reasons. 8. Oral evidence adduced by prosecution. 8.1. PW1 Megh Nath has stated that accused is known to him. He has stated that in the year 2004 he sold two and half kanals land to accused situated in tikka Suniar Patt mauza Sagoor. (2) Final order. Finding on point No.1 with reasons. 8. Oral evidence adduced by prosecution. 8.1. PW1 Megh Nath has stated that accused is known to him. He has stated that in the year 2004 he sold two and half kanals land to accused situated in tikka Suniar Patt mauza Sagoor. He has stated that on the second day of sale deed accused called patwari and got her land demarcated and fixed boundaries by putting stones. He has stated that accused thereafter started cultivating land and his land remained vacant. He has stated that on dated 14.10.2006 he and his brother Bhupinder Pal along with Champa Devi wife of Rajinder Kumar at about 9.30 A.M. have gone to cut grass at Suniar Patt and when they were cutting grass from their own land at about 11.30 AM accused Roma Devi came and abused him. He has stated that sickle was in possession of accused. He has stated that accused picked up a stone and threw the same upon him which hit his left arm. He has stated that in the meanwhile accused with intention to kill him attacked upon him and inflicted injuries on the left side of his forehead with sickle. He has stated that blood started oozing out from his wound and shirt and towel got blood stained. He has stated that thereafter accused ran away from the place of incident and he became unconscious for about eight to ten minutes. He has stated that when he regains consciousness he found that his brother Bhupinder Pal and Champa Devi were providing water to him. He has stated that thereafter both of them took him to road side where his son Vijay Sharma came and took him to police station Baijnath. He has stated that he reported the matter to police and thereafter FIR Ext PW1/A was registered. He has stated that thereafter he was medically examined at civil hospital Baijnath. He has stated that after providing necessary medical aid he was discharged from hospital and sent to home. He has stated that on dated 15.10.2006 at about 9.30 AM police officials visited his village and called him to the place of incident. He has stated that the place of incident was identified by him and site plan was prepared. He has stated that after providing necessary medical aid he was discharged from hospital and sent to home. He has stated that on dated 15.10.2006 at about 9.30 AM police officials visited his village and called him to the place of incident. He has stated that the place of incident was identified by him and site plan was prepared. He has stated that police officials took into possession blood stained earth and grass from the place of incident and sealed the same in a parcel. He has stated that police officials took into possession stone with which he was hit by accused vide recovery memo Ext PW1/B. He has stated that blood stained earth and grass is Ext P1 and stone is Ext P2. He has stated that he handed over blood stained towel and shirt which were sealed in a parcel by police officials and same were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/C. He has stated that shirt Ext. P3 towel Ext P4 are the same. He has stated that in the presence of Ram Sarup and Vinod Kumar accused Roma Devi had given disclosure statement and as per disclosure statement of accused sickle was recovered from cow shed. He has stated that sketch map Ext PW1/D was prepared in his presence and sickle was put in a sealed parcel vide seizure memo Ext PW1/E. He has stated that sickle Ext P5 is the same which was took into possession by police officials in his presence. He has denied suggestion that entire ancestral property which is located in Tikka Suniar Patt had been sold by him. He has denied suggestion that dispute is regarding land which is in possession of accused. He has denied suggestion that crops sown by accused was cut by him. He has denied suggestion that after sale deed he had not handed over the possession of sold land to purchaser. He has admitted that he had sold land to accused vide sale deed dated 31.12.2003. He has admitted that he did not remain admit in hospital as an indoor patient. He has denied suggestion that he influenced medical officer in order to falsely implicate the accused. He has denied suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by accused. He has denied suggestion that all papers were signed in police station. He has admitted that he did not remain admit in hospital as an indoor patient. He has denied suggestion that he influenced medical officer in order to falsely implicate the accused. He has denied suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by accused. He has denied suggestion that all papers were signed in police station. He has admitted that he has sold his share from his immovable property to accused. He has denied suggestion that he sold entire land situated in village Suniar Patt. He has denied suggestion that accused did not inflict any injury upon him. He has denied suggestion that present criminal case was filed in order to dispossess accused. He has denied suggestion that he received injury of his own. He has denied suggestion that due to enmity false case is filed against accused. 8.2. PW2 Ram Sarup has stated that accused is known to him and complainant is also known to him. He has stated that he was up pradhan of gram panchayat Rajot. He has stated that he was called by police along with ward panch Vinod Kumar and Megh Nath. He has stated that police interrogated accused in their presence. He has stated that accused had disclosed that accused had concealed sickle in cow shed. He has stated that statement was reduced into writing. He has stated that statement Ext PW2/A was signed by accused. He has stated that accused led police party and witnesses to cow shed and thereafter sickle was recovered. He has stated that rough sketch map of sickle Ext PW1/D was prepared which bears his signature. He has stated that sickle Ext P5 is the same. He has admitted that there is dispute regarding possession of a piece of land in between the complainant and accused. He has denied suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by accused. He has denied suggestion that no sickle was recovered from cow shed as per disclosure statement of accused. He has denied suggestion that complainant is his cousin brother. 8.3. PW3 Purshotam Lal has stated that complainant is known to him. He has stated that on dated 15.10.2006 police visited his village in connection with investigation of present case. He has stated that complainant Megh Nath took police officials to Suniar Pat. He has denied suggestion that complainant is his cousin brother. 8.3. PW3 Purshotam Lal has stated that complainant is known to him. He has stated that on dated 15.10.2006 police visited his village in connection with investigation of present case. He has stated that complainant Megh Nath took police officials to Suniar Pat. He has stated that police officials took into possession blood stained earth and blood stained grass in a parcel which was duly sealed. He has stated that one stone was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/B which bears his signature. He has stated that blood stained earth and grass Ext P1 and stone Ext P2 are the same. He has stated that Megh Nath produced his blood stained shirt Ext P3 and towel Ext P4 which were sealed and took into possession vide memo Ext PW1/C which bears his signature as well as signatures of Hans Raj and Megh Nath. He has stated that Megh Nath intends to dispossess Roma Devi from land owned by her. He has denied suggestion that he did not visit Suniar Patt on 15.10.2006. He has denied suggestion that he signed memo in police station. 8.4 PW4 Smt. Satya Devi has stated that Megh Nath is known to her. She has stated that Roma Devi is known to her. She has stated that her house is adjacent to the land of Megh Nath. She has stated that occurrence took about 1 ½ years back. She has stated that Megh Nath had gone to cut grass from his land located in Suniar Patt and he was accompanied by 1/2 other persons. She has stated that other persons were Bhupinder Singh and Champa Devi. She has stated that she was working in the field of Chain Singh as labourer. She has stated that nothing happened in her presence. She has stated that while Megh Nath was returning to his house he suffered injury on his forehead and blood was oozing out from his head and thereafter he was took to his house by two persons Bhupinder Pal and Champa Devi. She has stated that they were not carrying any grass at that time. She has stated that she did not see anybody inflicting injury on the forehead of Megh Nath. Witness was declared hostile. She has denied suggestion that she has resiled from earlier statement in order to save accused. She has stated that they were not carrying any grass at that time. She has stated that she did not see anybody inflicting injury on the forehead of Megh Nath. Witness was declared hostile. She has denied suggestion that she has resiled from earlier statement in order to save accused. She has admitted that Megh Nath and his brother Bhupinder Pal have sold land to Roma Devi. She has admitted that dispute regarding possession of land is going on between Megh Nath, Bhupinder Pal and accused Roma Devi. She has stated that she does not know whether Megh Nath is retired police personnel or not. 8.5 PW5 Bhupinder Pal has stated that Megh Nath is his elder brother. He has stated that Champa Devi is his sisterin- law. He has stated that on dated 14.10.2006 at about 10.30 AM he along with PW1 Megh Nath and Champa Devi have gone to cut and fetch grass from land situated at Suniar Patt. He has stated that when they started cutting grass from land at about 11 AM accused Roma Devi came at the spot and abused them. He has stated that when his brother Megh Nath asked accused Roma Devi as to why she was abusing then accused Roma Devi picked up a stone and pelted same upon Megh Nath which hit on his arm. He has stated that thereafter accused Roma Devi inflicted a blow with sickle over the forehead of his brother Megh Nath due to which his brother suffered injury and blood started oozing out. He has stated that thereafter his brother became unconscious and water was given to injured Megh Nath upon which injured regain consciousness. He has stated that PW3 Satya Devi was working in a field at a distance of about 15 meters. He has stated that thereafter injured Megh Nath was took to police station Baijnath and thereafter injured was brought to government civil hospital Baijnath where he was medically treated. He has stated that at the spot police officials took into possession blood stained earth and stone which was pelted by accused Roma Devi upon his brother. He has stated that stone Ext.P2 is the same. He has stated that sickle Ext P5 is the same through which injury inflicted upon his brother. He has stated that he and injured Megh Nath have sold land to accused Roma Devi. He has stated that stone Ext.P2 is the same. He has stated that sickle Ext P5 is the same through which injury inflicted upon his brother. He has stated that he and injured Megh Nath have sold land to accused Roma Devi. He has denied suggestion that they used to make interference with the possession of accused Roma Devi. He has stated that accused Roma Devi filed application for partition of land which was allowed. He has denied suggestion that accused Roma Devi did not come at the spot. He has denied suggestion that Roma Devi did not abuse. He has denied suggestion that Roma Devi did not pelt stone upon injured. He has denied suggestion that Roma Devi did not inflict injury with sickle upon forehead of injured. He has admitted that PW1 Megh Nath was employed in police department and now he has retired. He has denied suggestion that he had enmity with accused Roma Devi and due to enmity false case filed against accused. 8.6. PW6 Smt. Champa Devi has stated that accused Roma Devi is known to her. She has stated that PW1 Megh Nath and PW5 Bhupinder Paul are her brother-in-laws. She has stated that land is situated at place Suniar Patt. She has stated that on dated 14.10.2006 at 10.30 AM she along with PW1 Megh Nath and PW5 Bhupinder Pal proceeded to cut and fetch grass from land at village Suniar Patt. She has stated that when they were cutting grass accused Roma Devi came at the spot at about 11 AM and she was in possession of sickle in her hand. She has stated that accused Roma Devi abused them and when PW1 Megh Nath her brother-in-law asked accused not to abuse then accused picked up stone and pelted same which hit injured Megh Nath on left arm. She has stated that thereafter accused had given sickle blow over the forehead of injured and blood started oozing out. She has stated that PW1 Megh Nath became unconscious and thereafter water was sprinkled upon him and thereafter he regains consciousness. She has stated that Satya Devi was working in a field at a distance of 10/15 meters from the spot. She has stated that thereafter matter was reported in police station and injured was medically examined. She has stated that PW1 Megh Nath became unconscious and thereafter water was sprinkled upon him and thereafter he regains consciousness. She has stated that Satya Devi was working in a field at a distance of 10/15 meters from the spot. She has stated that thereafter matter was reported in police station and injured was medically examined. She has stated that stone Ext P2 and sickle Ext P5 are the same through which injuries were inflicted. She has admitted that civil litigation is pending between accused Roma Devi and injured Megh Nath. She has denied suggestion that accused did not come at the spot. She has denied suggestion that accused did not inflict injury with sickle upon the forehead of injured. She has denied suggestion that accused did not pelt stone Ext P2 on the left arm of injured Megh Nath. She has denied suggestion that Megh Nath, Bhupinder Pal and Bimla have sold whole of their land to accused Roma Devi. She has denied suggestion that PW1 Megh Nath in connivance with his family members did not allow accused to occupy the land which was sold to Roma Devi. She has denied suggestion that PW1 Megh Nath had suffered injury by way of falling on ground. She has denied suggestion that she deposed falsely due to enmity with accused. 8.7 PW7 Smt. Sureshta Thakur has stated that during years 2005-07 she remained posted as Station House Officer police station Baijnath. She has stated that on dated 14.10.2006 PW1 Megh Nath visited police station Baijnath in injured condition and she recorded FIR Ext PW1/A which bears her signature and that of injured Megh Nath. She has stated that he instructed MHC police station Baijnath to get Megh Nath medically examined. She has stated that MHC police station Baijnath preferred application Ext PW7/A for medical examination of Megh Nath in hospital and thereafter PW1 Megh Nath was medically examined. She has stated that on receipt of medico legal certificate she handed over investigation of case to ASI Kamal Chand police station Baijnath who investigated the case and on completion of investigation of case he handed over case file to her. She has stated that she prepared police report under section 173 Cr.PC and presented challan in court for trial. She has stated that on receipt of medico legal certificate she handed over investigation of case to ASI Kamal Chand police station Baijnath who investigated the case and on completion of investigation of case he handed over case file to her. She has stated that she prepared police report under section 173 Cr.PC and presented challan in court for trial. She has denied suggestion that FIR Ext PW1/A was recorded later on after due consultation and deliberation to falsely implicate accused Roma Devi. She has stated that revenue record of the land where occurrence took place was not obtained from patwari by investigating officer. She has denied suggestion that complainant being retired police official she filed false case against accused. 8.8. PW8 Dr. Tilak Bhagra has stated that he remained posted as medical officer in civil hospital Baijnath. He has stated that on dated 14.10.2006 police official posted in police station Baijnath moved an application Ext PW7/A for medical examination of Megh Nath son of late Sh Radha Krishan aged 62 years. He has stated that he medically examined injured Megh Nath and found following injuries: 1. Incised wound was present on the left side of forehead in temporal region about 1 cm. posterior to left eye brow of size 2x2.03 cm. Sharp margins, swelling of size 4x2 cms and clotted blood also present. (2) Bruise injury was present anterior to injury No.1 of size 3x0.5 cm reddish in colour (3) Bruise injury was present posterior to injury No.1 of size 2x2.0.5 cm reddish in colour (4) Abrasion was present upon left fore arm about 10 cms. He has stated that injured Megh Nath suffered head injury and he was advised x-ray examination. He has stated that x-ray of injured was conducted relating to injury No.1. He has stated that skiagrams are Ext PW8/A1 and Ext PW8/A2. He has stated that as per x-ray film there was no evidence of fracture. He has stated that he issued MLC Ext PW8/A which bears his signature. He has stated that as per x-ray report he opined that injury suffered by Megh Nath was simple in nature. He has stated that injury No.1 was caused with sharp edged weapon whereas other injuries were caused with blunt weapon. He has stated that injury No.1 could be caused with sickle Ext P5 and other injuries could be caused with blunt weapon i.e. stone. He has stated that injury No.1 was caused with sharp edged weapon whereas other injuries were caused with blunt weapon. He has stated that injury No.1 could be caused with sickle Ext P5 and other injuries could be caused with blunt weapon i.e. stone. He has stated that injury No.1 though was simple in nature but was caused on the vital part of body of Megh Nath and same was fatal to life if not cured. He has stated that Ext PW8/B is the x-ray report which bears his signature. He has stated that probable duration of injury was less then six hours. He has stated that he also noted down identification mark. He has stated that injury No.1 could not be possible by fall and other injuries are possible by fall on hard surface. He has stated that injuries No. 2 and 3 were on the head of Megh Nath. 8.9. PW9 SI Kamal Chand has stated that during year 2006 he was posted as investigating officer in police station Baijnath. He has stated that case file was entrusted to him by SHO. He has stated that he proceeded to spot and associated the witnesses. He has stated that he prepared spot map Ext PW9/A. He has stated that he collected blood stained earth and grass. He has stated that seal after use was entrusted to Hans Raj. He has stated that blood stained earth and grass is Ext P1 and stone is Ext P2. He has stated that he associated Megh Nath injured during investigation. He has stated that injured produced his blood stained shirt Ext P3 and blood stained towel Ext. P4 which were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/C. He has stated that sickle was recovered from cow shed as per disclosure statement given by accused. He has stated that he prepared sketch map of sickle Ext PW1/D and thereafter sealed the same in a parcel. He has stated that he prepared spot map Ext PW9/C. He has stated that he also obtained final opinion of medical officer and thereafter he handed over case file to SHO for preparation of challan. He has admitted that there was dispute between accused and complainant relating to immoveable land. He has admitted that Megh Nath is a retired police official. He has admitted that there was dispute between accused and complainant relating to immoveable land. He has admitted that Megh Nath is a retired police official. He has admitted that Champa Devi is real sister-in-law of injured Megh Nath and Bhupinder Pal is real brother of injured. He has admitted that injuries No. 1 to 3 were simple in nature as per opinion of medical officer. He has denied suggestion that he did not fairly investigated the case. 9. Prosecution also tendered following documentaries evidence.(1) Ext. PW1/A copy of FIR No.164 dated 14.10.2006 (2) Ext PW1/B recovery memo of blood clotted grass, earth and stone (3) Ext PW1/C recovery memo of blood stained shirt and towel (4) Ext. PW1/D sketch map of sickle (5) Ext.PW1/E recovery memo sickle (6) Ext PW2/A disclosure statement of accused Roma Devi under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act relating to recovery of sickle (7) Ext PW7/A application for medical examination of Megh Nath injured (8) Ext.PW8/A MLC report of Megh Nath injured (9) Ext PW8/B x-ray report of injured Megh Nath (10) Ext PW9/A spot map. (11) Ext.PW9/B statement of PW4 Satya Devi for contradicting purpose. (12) Ext PW9/C site plan (13) Ext DA statement of Parshotam Lal. (A) Testimony of PW1 Megh Nath injured is fatal to accused relating to criminal offence under Section 324 IPC. 10. PW1 Megh Nath has specifically stated in positive manner that accused hit injured with stone upon his left arm. PW1 Megh Nath has specifically stated that accused inflicted injury upon left side of his forehead with sickle. Testimony of PW1 Megh Nath is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve testimony of PW1 Megh Nath. (B) Testimony of PW5 Bhupinder Pal is also fatal to accused relating to criminal offence under Section 324 IPC. 11. PW5 Bhupinder Pal eye witness has specifically stated that accused Roma Devi picked up stone and pelted upon PW1 Megh Nath injured which hit his left arm. PW5 Bhupinder Pal has further stated that thereafter accused inflicted a blow with sickle upon forehead of injured Megh Nath. Testimony of PW5 is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of court because PW5 is natural eye witness of incident. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 Bhupinder Pal. PW5 Bhupinder Pal has further stated that thereafter accused inflicted a blow with sickle upon forehead of injured Megh Nath. Testimony of PW5 is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of court because PW5 is natural eye witness of incident. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 Bhupinder Pal. (C) Testimony of PW6 Champa Devi is also fatal to accused relating to criminal offence under Section 324 IPC. 12. PW6 Champa Devi has specifically stated that accused Roma Devi picked up stone and hit upon left arm of injured Megh Nath in her presence. PW6 Champa Devi has specifically stated in positive manner that thereafter accused has given a blow of sickle over forehead of Megh Nath with sickle. Testimony of PW6 Champa Devi is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court because PW6 is natural eye witness of incident. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW6 Champa Devi. (D) Testimony of medical officer PW8 Dr. Tilak Bhagra is also fatal to accused relating to criminal offence under Section 324 IPC 13. PW8 Dr. Tilak Bhagra has specifically stated that on dated 14.10.2006 he medically examined injured Megh Nath at 4 PM and he found four injuries upon the body of injured. PW8 Dr. Tilak Bhagra has specifically stated in positive manner that injury No.1 was inflicted upon head vital part of the body of injured Megh Nath and was fatal to life if not cured. PW8 has specifically stated in positive manner that injury No.1 was not possible by fall. PW8 has specifically stated that injury No.1 was caused with sharp edged weapon. PW8 Dr Tilak Bhagra has corroborated testimonies of eye witness namely PW1 Megh Nath, PW5 Bhupinder Pal and PW6 Champa Devi. Testimony of PW8 Dr Tilak Bhagra is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW8 Dr. Tilak Bhagra medical officer. (E) Disclosure statement given by accused under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is also fatal to accused. 14. PW2 Ram Sarup marginal witness of disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act has specifically stated in positive manner that sickle through which injury was inflicted upon forehead of injured Megh Nath was recovered from cattle shed as per disclosure statement given by accused Roma Devi. 14. PW2 Ram Sarup marginal witness of disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act has specifically stated in positive manner that sickle through which injury was inflicted upon forehead of injured Megh Nath was recovered from cattle shed as per disclosure statement given by accused Roma Devi. Testimony of PW2 Ram Sarup is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. Oral testimonies of PW1 Megh Nath, PW2 Ram Sarup, PW5 Bhupinder Pal, PW6 Champa Devi and PW8 Dr.Tilak Bhagra are corroborated by seizure memo Ext PW1/B and sketch map of sickle Ext PW1/D,memos Ext PW1/E & Ext PW2/A, MLC report Ext PW8/A,skiagram and site plan placed on record. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that PW1 Megh Nath, PW5 Bhupinder Pal and PW6 Champa Devi are all relative witnesses and their testimonies cannot be relied is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that PW1 Megh Nath, PW5 Bhupinder Pal and PW6 Champa Devi are natural witnesses of the incident. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case reported in AIR 1977 SC 472 titled Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab that close relatives who on the circumstances of case are very natural witnesses are not an interested witness. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case reported in AIR 1976 SC 2499 titled Molu and others Vs. State of Haryana that mere fact that witnesses were close relatives is not sufficient to discard them. Also see AIR 1975 SC 2304 titled Sarwan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that there is material contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused entire testimonies of oral witnesses produced by prosecution. There is no material contradiction and improvement in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of case. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal case when statement of prosecution witnesses recorded after a gap of sufficient time. We have carefully perused entire testimonies of oral witnesses produced by prosecution. There is no material contradiction and improvement in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of case. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal case when statement of prosecution witnesses recorded after a gap of sufficient time. In the present case incident took place on dated 14.10.2006 at about 11 AM at village Suniar Patt and statement of prosecution witnesses recorded on dated 19.2.2008, 20.2.2008, 21.2.2008, 22.2.2008, 31.3.2008 and 26.4.2008 after a gap of sufficient time. It is well settled law that minor contradictions in criminal case should be ignored when testimony of prosecution witnesses is recorded after a gap of sufficient time. See 2010 (9) SCC 567 titled C.Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. See AIR 1972 SC 2020 titled Sohrab and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, see AIR 1985 SC 48 titled State of UP Vs. M.K.Anthony, see AIR 1983 SC 753 titled Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, see AIR 2007 SC 2257 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Parkash, see 2009 (11) SCC 588 titled Prithu Chand and another Vs. State of HP, see 2009 (9) SCC 626 titled State of UP Vs. Santosh Kumar and others, see AIR 2009 SC 151 titled State Vs. Saravanan and another, see AIR 1988 SC 696 titled Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat, see AIR 1999 SC 3544 titled Rammi Vs. State of M.P, see 2000(1) SCC 247 titled State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj and another, see 2004 (10) SCC 94 titled Laxman Vs. Poonam Singh and others also See 2004 (7) SCC 408 titled Dashrath Singh Vs. State of UP. See 2012 (10) SCC 433 titled Kuriya and another Vs. State of Rajasthan. It is well settled law that concept falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal case. See AIR 1980 SC 957 titled Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana. Also See AIR 1971 SC 2505 titled Rai Singh Vs. State of Haryana. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that complainant used to interfere in the possession of land purchased by accused Roma Devi from complainant Megh Nath is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. State of Haryana. Also See AIR 1971 SC 2505 titled Rai Singh Vs. State of Haryana. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that complainant used to interfere in the possession of land purchased by accused Roma Devi from complainant Megh Nath is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Accused did not lead any positive and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that injured Megh Nath along with his family members have interfered in the land purchased by accused Roma Devi. Accused did not lead any defence evidence in support of her case. Plea of the accused that complainant himself interfered in the land owned by her is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (Assertion made without proof). Even accused has no license to inflict sharp injury on the forehead of Megh Nath with sickle and no one can be allowed to inflict injury upon the vital part of the body with sharp edged weapon in order to maintain majesty of law. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of PW4 Satya Devi is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW4 Staya Devi has specifically stated in positive manner when she appeared in witness box that when PW1 Megh Nath was returning to his house he had suffered injury on his forehead and blood was oozing out. PW8 Dr. Tilak Bhagra has specifically stated that self infliction of injury upon forehead is ruled out. Injury suffered by Megh Nath on his forehead is also admitted by PW4 Satya Devi when she appeared in witness box. It is well settled law that evidence should not be read in isolation. It is well settled law that testimony of the witness should be read as a whole in order to come to definite conclusion. PW4 Satya Devi has been declared hostile by prosecution. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case reported in 2011 (6) SCC 312 titled Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat that evidence of hostile witness may contain elements of truth and should not be entirely discarded. Also see AIR 1989 SC 1543 titled State of UP Vs. Chet Ram. Also see AIR 1991 S.C 1853 titled Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Gujarat that evidence of hostile witness may contain elements of truth and should not be entirely discarded. Also see AIR 1989 SC 1543 titled State of UP Vs. Chet Ram. Also see AIR 1991 S.C 1853 titled Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. Also see 2012 (4) SCC 327 titled Bhajju alias Karan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Also see 1999 (8) SCC 624 titled Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai Vs. State of Gujarat. Also see 2010 (8) SCC 536 titled Prithi Vs. State of Haryana. Also see 2010 (6) SSC 1 titled Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). Also see 2007 (13) SCC 525 titled Ramkrushna Vs. State of Maharashtra. Also see 2012 (5) SCC 77 titled Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. Also see AIR 1976 SC 202 titled Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana. Also see 1977 SC 170 titled Ravindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa. Also see AIR 1979 SC 1848 titled Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered partly in yes and partly in no. Point No.2 (Final order) 19. In view of above stated facts appeal is partly allowed. Respondent Roma Devi is convicted for minor offence under section 324 IPC as per provision of Section 222 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 because facts are proved which reduced criminal offence to minor offence under Section 324 IPC. Judgment of learned trial court is modified to this extent only. Convict be heard on the quantum of sentence on 28.12.2015. Cr. Appeal No. 727 of 2008 QUANTUM OF SENTENCE 28.12.2015 Present: Mr. V.S.Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, for the appellant. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishat Advocate with convict. Convict Roma Devi is in custody of LC Shilpa Chauhan No. 881 and ASI Santosh Raj I/C P.P. Chadhiar. 20. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of the convict lady upon quantum of sentence. 21. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted before us that heinous punishment be granted to convict lady in order to maintain majesty of law as convict lady had inflicted injuries upon vital part of body of injured with sharp edged weapon. 21. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted before us that heinous punishment be granted to convict lady in order to maintain majesty of law as convict lady had inflicted injuries upon vital part of body of injured with sharp edged weapon. On contrary learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of convict lady submitted that convict is a female lady and is suffering from ailment and lenient view be taken and convict lady be released on Probation of Offenders Act. 22. We have considered the submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of the convict lady carefully. 23. In view of the fact that convict lady had inflicted injuries upon vital part of body of injured with sharp edged weapon we are of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the convict lady on Probation of Offenders Act 1958. However keeping in view the age of convict lady and keeping in view the fact that convict is first offender we are of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to send the convict lady to imprisonment. It is well settled law that sentence should commensurate with gravity of offence. See AIR 2015 SC 398 titled State of M.P. vs. Surendra Singh. See 2009(15) SCC 635 titled Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana. Hence we impose the sentence as under:- Sr. No. Nature of offence Sentence imposed 1. Offence under Section 324 IPC Fine to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). Fine will be deposited by convict within four weeks from today. In case fine amount is not deposited within aforesaid period then same shall be recovered by learned trial Court strictly as per Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In default of recovery of fine amount convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 24. Sentence of imprisonment if any during investigation, inquiry and trial will be set off. Case property shall be confiscated to State of H.P. after expiry of period of limitation and in case of further legal proceedings as per directions of Hon’ble competent authority of law. Copy of judgment and sentence will be furnished to the convict forthwith in accordance with law. Case property shall be confiscated to State of H.P. after expiry of period of limitation and in case of further legal proceedings as per directions of Hon’ble competent authority of law. Copy of judgment and sentence will be furnished to the convict forthwith in accordance with law. File of learned trial Court will be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of judgment and sentence. Appeal is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.