JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the impugned judgment, of, 19.2.2009, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P, upon, Criminal Case No. 29-II-2006, where through, the accused/respondent herein (for short ?the accused?) stands acquitted, for, the commission of offence punishable, under, Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34, of, the Indian Penal Code (for short ?IPC?). Co-accused Tilak Raj, was reported to be dead, during the pendency of the instant appeal, before this Court, hence his name was ordered to be deleted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Kewal Singh lodged a Rapat, comprised in Ex. PW-8/A alleging, therein that he is resident of village Sulhari, and, he had constructed his shops near Kulehra School, where he had kept concrete, upon, the Government land adjacent to his shop. It is further alleged that 4-5 days back, accused had kept bricks, upon, the concrete, and, on 21.1.2006, at about 12 noon, he asked accused Purshotam Chand, to, remove his bricks from the concrete. The accused got annoyed, and, refused to remove the bricks from there, and, when the complainant himself tried to remove his bricks from the concrete, son of accused came there, and, gave fist blow upon his mouth and his two teeth were broken and blood started oozing out from his Mouth. It is further reported qua the accused also giving fist blows on the mouth of the complainant. One Bhagi Rath and Sita Ram came on the spot and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. An FIR was registered and, investigation into the matter was commenced. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. The accused and his son Tilak Raj, stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for theirs committing offences punishable, under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, and, of accused Tilak Raj, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood recorded, wherein, they pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. However, they chose to lead defence evidence, and hence examined two witnesses. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, and, of accused Tilak Raj, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood recorded, wherein, they pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. However, they chose to lead defence evidence, and hence examined two witnesses. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal, upon, the accused. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has, concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing, not based, on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the relevant material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal, warranting reversal by this Court, in the, exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel for the accused, has, with considerable force, and, vigour contended, qua, the findings of acquittal, recorded by the Court below, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, of, evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating interference rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel, on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The learned trial Magistrate, anvilled, his verdict of acquittal, qua, the deposition of PW-4 one Bhagi Rath, an, ocular witness to the occurrence, being not amenable, for, meteing credence, given, (a) though his making a testification qua his being present at the relevant time, yet his being, an, interested witnesses, (b) inference whereof, engendering from his making an admission in his cross-examination, qua both, he and one Veena Devi, filing a case against the accused, for, his encroaching, upon, government land, and, concomitantly thereupon, he concluded qua with the defence, proving his inimicality with the accused, hence his deposition being incredible. 10. The learned trial Magistrate also had disimputed credence, vis-a-vis, the testification qua the genesis of the occurrence, as, rendered by PW-3 (Kewal Singh), given, his in a rapat, borne in Ex. 10. The learned trial Magistrate also had disimputed credence, vis-a-vis, the testification qua the genesis of the occurrence, as, rendered by PW-3 (Kewal Singh), given, his in a rapat, borne in Ex. PW-8/A, not mentioning the names of Veena Devi, Sushil Kumar and Prem Nath, as, eye witnesses to the occurrence, (i) yet the prosecution proceeding, to, ensure the stepping, into, the witness box, of Prem Nath, and, of Sushil Kumar, (ii) hence the testification rendered by the latter, qua, the genesis of the prosecution case also warranting apt discardings. Be that as it may assuming, the afore disimputation of credence, vis-a-vis, the testification, qua the occurrence, as, rendered by PW-3, one Prem Nath, and, by one Susheel Kumar being not amenable, for, assigning tenacity thereto, (i) nonetheless the effects thereof, and, also the effects of disimputation, of, credence by the learned trial Magistrate, qua the testification rendered, vis-a-vis, the genesis of the prosecution case, rather by PW-3, the complainant, is, for the reasons assigned hereinafter unmeritworthy. 11. PW-4 in his examination-in- chief, lends the completest succor, vis-a-vis, the genesis of the prosecution case, yet, during the course of his being subjected to cross-examination, an apposite suggestion stands meted to him by the learned defence counsel, with clear echoings, that, at the relevant time, of the scuffle, hence taking place, rather at the relevant site of occurrence, his alongwith others proceeding, to the site of occurrence, and, whereto, PW-4 makes an affirmative answer, (a) and, also his during the course of his being subjected to cross-examination, being hence meted a suggestion, by the learned defence Counsel, with, clear and candid echoings therein, vis-a-vis, his being present at the site, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, demarcation of the spot, and, whereto, also he meted an, affirmative answer, (b) whereupon, obviously he is to be concluded to also acquiesce qua the site plan being also prepared in his presence. The concomitant ensuing inference therefrom, is, that the defence acquiescing, vis-a-vis, PW-4 hence being an ocular witness, to the occurrence, and, also thereupon the defence, is, inferred, to, acquiesce, vis-a-vis, the testification, of, the afore witness(s), as, comprised in his, examination-in-chief, obviously, garnering an aura of truth, (a) and, obviously, a, further inference, is, also derivable qua thereupon, his testification embodied in his examination- in-chief, where through, he lends succor to the genesis, of, the prosecution case, being truthful, merit worthy, and, also credible. 12. 12. The site plan comprised in Ex. PW-7/A, when for, the afore reasons, is, acquiesced by PW-4, to be, prepared in his presence, and, when therein, the, site of occurrence is reflected, and, when PW-4 has been acquiesced by the defence, to be, an eye witness to the occurrence, (i) and, when the investigating Officer, who, tendered into evidence, the site plan rather remained uncross-examined, vis-a-vis, its not comprising the relevant site, nor, PW-4 being cross-examined, qua, his being incapacitated, to, witness the occurrence, as happened at the spot depicted, in, the site plan, (ii) thereupon, hence the credible eye witness account, vis-a-vis, the occurrence, rendered by PW-4, does benumb, the afore dis-imputation, of, credence by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis, the testification rendered by PW-3. 13. Be that as it may, since credible eye witness account, prevails upon medical evidence, and, hence any dichotomy, as, exists, inter-se, the depositions, of, expert witnesses', in as much, as inter-se PW-1 Dr. H.R Kalia, and, PW-2 Dr. V.K Singh, and, appertaining to the cause of injuries, obviously, is, concomitantly blunted, and, subsumed. 14. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit, and, appropriate, that, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, hence, warrant interference. Consequently, I find merit in this appeal, which is accordingly allowed, and, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. Now the matter be listed on 17.09.2019, on which date the accused be produced before this Court, for, his being heard on quantum of sentence. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.