JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present revision petition is filed against judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge Kullu District Kullu HP whereby learned Sessions Judge Kullu affirmed conviction of revisionists passed by learned Trial Court and modified sentence part only. Brief facts of prosecution case: 2. Brief facts of case as alleged by prosecution are that on intervening night of 25th/26th June 2005 at about 12.15 AM at village Khaknal District Kullu HP accused persons in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained complainant Ludar Chand and caused grievous hurt by way of giving fist blows due to which one tooth of Ludar Chand was broken and other teeth were placed in damaged condition. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons in furtherance of common intention caused hurt to complainant by way of fist blows. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons committed mischief by way of causing wrongful damage to martuti Van No HP-58A- 0182 belonging to Ludar Chand. It is further alleged by prosecution that statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.PC Ext PW4/A was recorded and on the basis of statement of complainant FIR Ext PW4/B was registered against accused persons. It is further alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext PW7/A was prepared and photographs Ext P1 to Ext P8 obtained and MLC Ext PW2/A and x-ray report film Ext PW1/B and dental report Ext PW1/A also obtained. Charge was framed against accused persons by learned Trial Court under Sections 341, 325, 323, 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined seven witnesses and also tendered documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court convicted both accused under sections 341, 325, 323, 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Learned Trial Court sentenced convicts to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month each and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each under Section 341 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Learned Trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convicts would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Learned Trial Court further sentenced convicts for a period of three months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Learned Trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convicts would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Learned Trial Court further sentenced convicts for a period of three months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Learned Trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convicts would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Learned Trial Court further sentenced convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ each under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Learned Trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convicts would undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Learned Trial Court further sentenced convicts to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Learned Trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine each convicts would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Learned Trial Court further directed that all sentences would run concurrently. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court Criminal Appeal No. 27/2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 28/2006 filed by convicts before learned Sessions Judge Kullu. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu disposed of both appeals on dated 10.1.2008. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu upheld judgment of learned Trial Court and modified sentence part only. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu reduced sentence to 15 days each under section 341 IPC read with section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine each convicts would undergo imprisonment for seven days. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu further directed that sentence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one month each and in default of payment of fine convicts would undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to rigorous imprisonment of two months each. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu further directed that in default of payment of fine each convicts would undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to rigorous imprisonment of two months each. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu further directed that in default of payment of fine each convicts would undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu further reduced the sentence of imprisonment of three months under Section 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to rigorous imprisonment of one month. Learned Sessions Judge further directed that in default of payment of fine the convicts would undergo simple imprisonment of seven days. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu further directed that all sentence would run concurrently. Learned Sessions Judge further directed that amount of fine imposed by learned Trial Court is retained and learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence part accordingly. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge Kullu convicts filed present revision petition. 6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and also gone through entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present criminal revision petition: 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionists is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of ground of revision petition? 2. Final order. 8. Findings on point No.1 with reasons: 8.1 PW1 Dr.Yogita Thakur medical officer has stated that on 27.6.2005 injured Ludar Chand was medically examined who was referred for dental opinion. Medical officer has stated that on medical examination following injuries were observed. (1) Avulsed upper right lateral incisor. (2) Grade-II mobility with upper right and left central. (3) Tenderness with upper right and left central incisor. (4) Swelling with upper lip in relation with upper right and left central and lateral incisor and advised X-ray. Medical officer has further stated that nature of injury was grievous as per x-ray film and x-ray report. In cross examination Medical officer has admitted that aforesaid injuries could be caused if person strikes against hard objects. PW1 Dr. Yogita Thakur also proved report Ext PW1/A placed on record. 8.2 PW2 Dr. Rakesh Negi has stated that injured Ludar Chand was examined on 26.6.2005. He has stated that there was small lacerated wound measuring around 0.5- 1cm on upper lip middle with multiple abrasions on upper lip. PW1 Dr. Yogita Thakur also proved report Ext PW1/A placed on record. 8.2 PW2 Dr. Rakesh Negi has stated that injured Ludar Chand was examined on 26.6.2005. He has stated that there was small lacerated wound measuring around 0.5- 1cm on upper lip middle with multiple abrasions on upper lip. He has stated that case was alleged history of loss of tooth and on examination of injured Ludar Chand socket was bleeding and tooth was missing. He has stated that there was swelling in the socket. He has stated that upper lip was swollen. PW2 Dr. Rakesh Negi proved MLC Ext PW2/A. He has stated that aforesaid injuries could be caused if person strikes against edged object forcefully. 8.3 PW3 MC Shanta Kumar has stated that he was posted in police station Manali. He has stated that rapat No. 36 Ext PW3/A was recorded which was written by him and the same is correct as per original record. 8.4 PW4 Inspector Jagdish Chand has stated that he was posted as SHO at police station Manali since July 2003. He has stated that on dated 26.6.2005 he recorded statement of Ludar Chand under Section 154 Cr.PC Ex PW4/A and FIR Ext PW4/B was recorded which was signed by him. He has stated that endorsement Ext PW4/C was signed by him. 8.5 PW5 Ludar Chand injured has stated that on 25.6.2005 he had gone to participate in marriage ceremony of one Karam Chand. He has stated that at about 11.30 night he came back to his house in maruti van No.HP-58A- 0182. He has stated that on dated 25.6.2005 he, Pana Lal, Ailoo Ram,Chet Ram, Karam Chand were travelling in vehicle No HP-58-A-0182 during night period. He has stated that when they reached at village khaknal then co-accused Leela Sagar @ Neel Chand smashed his vehicle from driver side.He has stated that when they reached at village Sajla then co-accused Bir Singh and Leela Sagar were standing there and they stopped his vehicle and took him outside from his vehicle and beaten him with fist blows upon his mouth and teeth. He has stated that due to injuries inflicted by accused persons upper tooth broken and other teeth also damaged. He has stated that accused persons have also damaged his vehicle. He has stated that thereafter criminal report was filed. He has stated that he was medically examined. He has stated that due to injuries inflicted by accused persons upper tooth broken and other teeth also damaged. He has stated that accused persons have also damaged his vehicle. He has stated that thereafter criminal report was filed. He has stated that he was medically examined. He has stated that his vehicle sustained damage to tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to Rs.6000/- (Six thousand). He has denied suggestion that accused persons have not caused injuries upon his body. He has denied suggestion that his tooth was broken when his vehicle was dashed with electric pole. He has denied suggestion that he filed false criminal case against accused persons. 8.6 PW6 Ailoo Ram eye witness of incident has stated that on 25.6.2005 at about 11 night when they were coming back after attending marriage ceremony then coaccused Bir Singh came from behind and dashed his vehicle with vehicle of PW5 Ludar Chand injured and driven his vehicle ahead to the vehicle of PW5 Ludar Chand injured. He has stated that when they reached at village Sajla then accused persons present in the Court started beatings to Ludar Chand injured. He has stated that one tooth of Luder Chand was broken due to beating process conducted by accused persons. He has stated that accused persons inflicted leg blows upon vehicle of Ludar Chand and created dent in the vehicle of Ludar Chand. He has stated that quarrel took place for about 6/7 minutes. He has denied suggestion that tooth of Luder Chand injured was broken when his vehicle was dashed with electric pole. He has denied suggestion that Ludar Chand filed false criminal case against accused persons. 8.7 PW7 HC Mehar Singh has stated that he was posted as investigating officer in police station Manali since 2002. He has stated that at about 1.15 night on dated 25th /26th June 2006 statement of Ludar Chand Ext PW4/A was recorded. He has stated that medical examination of Ludar Chand injured was conducted. He has stated that he recorded statement of prosecution witnesses. He has denied suggestion that he prepared site plan contrary to factual position. He has denied suggestion that he recorded statement of witnesses as per his own convenience. He has denied suggestion that during investigation it was observed by him that Ludar Chand injured struck his vehicle with the vehicle of accused persons. He has denied suggestion that he prepared site plan contrary to factual position. He has denied suggestion that he recorded statement of witnesses as per his own convenience. He has denied suggestion that during investigation it was observed by him that Ludar Chand injured struck his vehicle with the vehicle of accused persons. He has denied suggestion that during investigation it was observed that vehicle of injured struck with electric pole. 9. Statement of accused persons recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons have stated that a false criminal case filed against them. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. 10. Following documentaries evidence produced by prosecution. (1) Ext PW4/B is the copy of FIR No. 125 dated 26.6.2005 under sections 341, 323, 427 and 34 IPC. (2) Ext PW4/A is rukka. (3) Ext PW4/C is the endorsement on rukka. (4) Ext PW7/A is the copy of site plan. (5) Ext P1 to Ext P9 are photographs of smashed vehicle of Ludar Chand along with negatives. (6) Ext PW2/A is the MLC of injured Ludar Chand injured aged 22 years. (7) Ext PW1/A is the xray report of injured. (8) Ext PW1/B is the x-ray films of injured. (9) Ext PW3/A is rapat No. 36 dated 25.6.2005. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court are against law and facts and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW5 Ludar Chand injured has specifically stated in positive manner that accused persons during night period struck their vehicle with his vehicle and thereafter inflicted injuries upon mouth and teeth of injured with fist blows. PW5 Ludar Chand has specifically stated in positive manner that due to criminal act of accused persons one tooth of injured fallen and other teeth of complainant also damaged. PW5 Ludar Chand has further stated that accused persons have damaged vehicle of injured also. Testimony of PW5 Ludar Chand is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 Ludar Chand. There is no positive evidence on record that injured has hostile animus with accused persons. 12. Testimony of PW5 injured Ludar Chand is also corroborated by PW6 Ailoo Ram eye witness of incident. Testimony of PW5 Ludar Chand is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 Ludar Chand. There is no positive evidence on record that injured has hostile animus with accused persons. 12. Testimony of PW5 injured Ludar Chand is also corroborated by PW6 Ailoo Ram eye witness of incident. PW6 Ailoo Ram has specifically stated in positive manner that accused persons inflicted injury upon Ludar Chand and due to injury sustained by injured one tooth of injured fallen and broken. PW6 Ailoo Ram has stated in positive manner that accused persons have created dent in the vehicle of Ludar Chand by way of leg blows. Testimony of PW6 Ailoo Ram independent eye witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW6 Ailoo Ram placed on record. There is no evidence on record that PW6 Ailoo Ram has hostile animus against accused persons at any point of time. 13. Testimony of PW5 Ludar Chand is corroborated with testimony of PW1 Dr. Yogita Thakur medical officer. PW1 Medical officer has specifically stated in positive manner that there was avulsed upper right lateral incisor and tenderness was also present. PW1 has specifically stated in positive manner that there was swelling with upper lip. PW1 has specifically stated in positive manner that as per x-ray report socket was empty with upper right lateral incisor. Testimony of PW1 is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 Dr. Yogita. 14. Testimony of PW1 Dr Yogita Thakur is corroborated by PW2 Dr. Rakesh Negi. PW2 Medical officer has specifically stated in positive manner that there was small lacerated wound measuring 0.5-1 cm on upper lip of injured. PW2 specifically stated that on examination of injured Ludar Chand socket was bleeding and tooth was missing and there was swelling in the socket. Testimony of PW2 is also trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 Dr. Rakesh Negi. 15. Testimonies of PW1 Dr. Yogita Thakur and PW2 Dr. Rakesh Negi are also corroborated with documentary evidence i.e. x-ray report Ext PW1/A and MLC Ext PW2/A of injured Ludar Chand. FIR was lodged immediately by injured Ludar Chand and thereafter medical examination of injured was conducted at about 2 AM immediately. Rakesh Negi. 15. Testimonies of PW1 Dr. Yogita Thakur and PW2 Dr. Rakesh Negi are also corroborated with documentary evidence i.e. x-ray report Ext PW1/A and MLC Ext PW2/A of injured Ludar Chand. FIR was lodged immediately by injured Ludar Chand and thereafter medical examination of injured was conducted at about 2 AM immediately. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that PW5 Ludar Chand and PW6 Ailoo Ram eye witness of incident contradicts each other and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused testimonies of oral eye witnesses examined by prosecution. There is no material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witness which goes to the root of case. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in a criminal case when the testimony of prosecution witnesses recorded after a gap of sufficient time. In the present case it is proved on record that incident took place on 25th /26th June 2005 at about 12.15 AM night and testimonies of prosecution witnesses were recorded on dated 22.11.2005 and 9.1.2006 after a gap of sufficient time. It was held in case reported in C. Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2010 (9) SCC 567 that undue importance should not be attached to omission, contradiction and discrepancy which do not goes to the root of case. It was held that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in statement of witnesses in criminal cases when statement of prosecution witness is recorded after gap of sufficient time. Also see Sohrab and another Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1972 SC 2020 , see State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48 , see Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753 , see State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Parkash AIR 2007 SC 2257 . see 2009 (11) SCC 588 title Prithu Chand and another Vs. State of HP, see 2009 (9) SCC 626 title State of UP Vs. Santosh Kumar and others, see AIR 2009 SC 151 title State Vs. Saravanan and another, see AIR 1988 SC 696 title Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat, see AIR 1999 SC 3544 title Rammi Vs. State of M.P, see 2000(1) SCC 247 title State of H.P. Vs. Santosh Kumar and others, see AIR 2009 SC 151 title State Vs. Saravanan and another, see AIR 1988 SC 696 title Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat, see AIR 1999 SC 3544 title Rammi Vs. State of M.P, see 2000(1) SCC 247 title State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj and another, see 2004 (10) SCC 94 title Laxman Vs. Poonam Singh and others. It is also well settled law that concept of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal trials. See AIR 1980 SC 957 title Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana. Also See AIR 1971 SC 2505 title Rai Singh Vs. State of Haryana. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW6 Ailoo Ram is not interested witness and PW6 Ailoo Ram is not close relative of PW5 Ludar Chand injured. There is no evidence on record that PW6 Ailoo Ram has hostile animus against revisionists at any point of time. Testimony of PW6 is trustworthy, reliable and inspirers confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW6.It is well settled law that testimony of related witness can also be relied if the evidence of related witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. See AIR 2016 SC 1015 title State of Punjab Vs. Suraj Prakash. It is well settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of solitary witness. See AIR 1973 SC 944 title Jose Vs. State of Kerla. See AIR 2010 SCW 4470 title Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that injured himself driven maruti van in high speed due to which van of injured struck with electric pole and injured sustained injury on his body and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The plea of accused persons that injured sustained injury when vehicle of injured struck with electric pole is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (Assertion made without proof). 19. The plea of accused persons that injured sustained injury when vehicle of injured struck with electric pole is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (Assertion made without proof). 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that incriminatory evidence not put to revisionists when statement of revisionists recorded under Section 113 Cr.PC and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused statement of accused persons recorded under Section 113 Cr.PC. It is held that all incriminatory evidence put to accused persons by learned Trial Court. It is held that no miscarriage of justice is caused to revisionists. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that no motive has been attributed to accused persons in present case and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that when criminal act is proved by way of direct eye witness then motive looses its substance. It is held that motive is required to be proved in circumstantial criminal case only and motive is not required to be proved in direct eye witness case. It is well settled law that when there is direct evidence relating to criminal offence then question of motive becomes immaterial. See AIR 2010 SCW 5685 title Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. See AIR 2010 SCW 4470 title Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal. See AIR 1986 SC 1899 title State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bogam Chandraiah and another. See 1974 SC 1193 title Datar Singh Vs. State of Punjab. See AIR 2003 SC 539 title Yunish Vs. State of M.P. See AIR 2003 SC 2213 title Balram Vs. State of Punjab. 21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that revisionists be released by way of giving them benefit of Probation of offenders Act 1958 is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to revisionists because injured has lost his tooth due to injury inflicted by revisionists upon injured. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu has already reduced sentence part in present case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to revisionists because injured has lost his tooth due to injury inflicted by revisionists upon injured. Learned Sessions Judge Kullu has already reduced sentence part in present case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to release revisionists on Probation of Offenders Act 1958 in present case. In view of above stated facts it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the present case. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (final order). 22. In view of findings on point No1 revision petition is dismissed. File of learned Trial Court and file of learned Sessions Judge Kullu along with certified copy of judgment be sent back forthwith. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application if any also stands disposed of.