JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. I have the privilege to go through the judgment authored by my senior colleague. I have also gone through the complete records of the case as well as the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, Camp at Bilaspur. In addition thereto, I perused the synopsis submitted by Shri Prashant Sharma and Ajit Sharma, Advocates and settled by Sr. Advocate Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. 2. As far as Cr. Appeal No. 135 of 2011, titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. is concerned, this appeal is filed by convict Ashok Kumar against his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of INR 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. So far as, Cr. Appeal No. 273 of 2011 titled as State of H.P. vs. Ashok Kumar is concerned, the State is aggrieved on sentence part and hence filed appeal under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence against accused/convict Ashok Kumar. Whereas Cr. Appeal No. 402 of 2011 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sohan Lal and another is concerned, the same is field by the State against the acquittal pronounced in favour of accused Sohan Lal and Leela Devi. 3. So far as conclusion in these two appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal 135 of 2011 and Cr. Appeal No. 273 of 2011 is concerned, I concur with my senior colleague and in my considered opinion, there is sufficient evidence proved on record to establish the guilt of accused Ashok Kumar, be it by taking recourse to his right of private defence or by non-discharging the burden upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. As regards the appeal filed by the State against Ashok Kumar, just one fact that the incident pertains to the year 2002, i.e. almost 17 years old and the State has not placed any material on record to prove that after this incident convict Ashok Kumar has indulged in any other criminal activities. Moreover, the complainant as well as accused are neighbours, having their land adjacent to each other and have to live together in the same neighbourhood for long time. Therefore, enhancing his sentence is not going to serve any purpose. 5. Moreover, the complainant as well as accused are neighbours, having their land adjacent to each other and have to live together in the same neighbourhood for long time. Therefore, enhancing his sentence is not going to serve any purpose. 5. Due to aforesaid reasons, I concur with the conclusions arrived in Cr. Appeal No. 135 of 2011 and Cr. Appeal No. 273 of 2011. However, I say with utmost respect that so far as Cr. Appeal No. 402 of 2011, State of H.P. vs. Sohan Lal and another is concerned, I have arrived at an opposite finding. With due reverence, I do not agree with the reasoning given by my senior colleague. Therefore, I am under a legal obligation to write my separate judgment, whereby I am dismissing the Cr. Appeal No. 402 of 2011, i.e. State of H.P. vs. Sohan Lal and another. I am confining my reasoning only to Cr. Appeal No. 402 of 2011 filed by the State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of accused Sohan Lal and Leela Devi under Section 307, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 6. The gist of the facts apposite to arrive a just and fair conclusion, is as follows:- (a) ASI Surinder Singh (PW-15), Police Post Golthai, Police Station Kot Kehloon, District Bilaspur, who is the Investigating Officer in this case, on receiving information of the assault, visited BBMB, Hospital, Nangal. He discussed with the doctor the injuries received by Prithvi Singh and Sita Devi, who opined that one of the injured Sita Devi was not in a position to make the statement. Therefore, he recorded the statement of Prithvi Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext.PW-1/A). (b) Prithvi Singh, informed the Investigating Officer that in the morning of 11th September, 2002 he alongwith his wife Sita Devi was present in the fields, right from the previous night because they had to save their maize crop from wild animals. In the morning of that day, at about 7.30 a.m, Sohan Lal (accused No.1) unleashed his three dogs, who came towards the the place where the couple was present. The land of Sohan Lal was adjacent to his land and he was cutting grass from there. On seeing the dogs, Prithvi Singh asked Sohan Lal to leash his dogs. This infuriated Sohan Lal. The land of Sohan Lal was adjacent to his land and he was cutting grass from there. On seeing the dogs, Prithvi Singh asked Sohan Lal to leash his dogs. This infuriated Sohan Lal. Thereafter, Sohan Lal and his son Ashok Kumar, both of whom, were having axe in their hand alongwith Leela Devi, who was having Danda in her hand, started hurling abuses at them. They also threatened that they would eliminate them. Prithvi Singh confronted them by saying that why were they abusing them and on this they were attacked. (c) Ashok Kumar inflicted 2-3 blows on Sita Devi from axe. Blood started oozing from her head. (d) Thereafter Prithvi Singh tried to rescue and save his wife, then Sohan Lal inflicted a blow of axe on his head. (e) His wife fell down and got totally stained with blood but Leela Devi kept on beating her with Danda(stick). On his raising cries one Balbir, who is a co-villager, reached the spot. (f) Thereafter Prithvi Singh became unconscious and later on came to know that he was brought to hospital where he regained consciousness. (g) During investigation, it transpired through PW-5 Bimla Thakur, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Makri, that Sohan Lal (a-1) and Prithvi Singh were having land dispute inter-se them. To that effect, during trial a question was also put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C In answer to this question, the accused admitted this fact. Investigating Officer ASI Surinder Singh (PW-15) in cross-examination also admitted that the land of the parties were adjacent to each other. (f) It is evident from the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. that all the three persons were arrested on 11.09.2002 and lateron granted bails. A-1 (Sohan Lal) was released on 11.10.2002. A-2 (Ashok Kumar) released on 22.10.2002. A-3 (Leela Devi) released on 18.09.2002. (h) Vide Ext.PW-18/D the Investigating Officer took into possession one axe from accused Sohan Lal and also took into possession one Danda from accused Leela Devi. The witnesses to the said recovery memos were Ram Chand (PW-3) and Ram Lal (PW-4). However, during examination both these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused. (i) The police sent the recovered articles to FSL, and vide report Ext.PW-18/G, which is per se admissible under Section 293. The witnesses to the said recovery memos were Ram Chand (PW-3) and Ram Lal (PW-4). However, during examination both these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused. (i) The police sent the recovered articles to FSL, and vide report Ext.PW-18/G, which is per se admissible under Section 293. Cr.P.C. FSL noticed the presence of human blood on axe on the sample of mud, but no grouping could be done. 7. The prosecution examined both the injured witnesses as well as the witnesses, who reached the spot immediately on seeing the occurrence, investigating officer and other formal witnesses as well as the doctor who conducted the post mortem. 8. After recording the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused Sohan Lal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C took a specific plea that he was innocent and due to civil litigation he was implicated in a false case. He further stated that there was no scuffle with him nor did he give any beatings to injured person. Explanation of accused Leela Devi in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that of innocence at the time when she was cutting grass then Prithvi Singh and Sita Devi came there and told her that this land belongs to them and thereafter she was attacked with axe and sticks. She says that her husband, A-1 Sohan Lal, was unwell and was present inside the home and on hearing her cries he came out and rescued her from the clutches of complainant and his wife. She stated that she did not enter into any scuffle with them. 9. The explanation given by Leela Devi wherein she stated that Sohan Lal was at his home and was unwell and came out only on hearing her cries is in contradiction with the explanation offered by Sohan Lal. A bare reading of Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. provides that the answer given by the accused may be put in evidence against him but it does not provide that the answer given by an accused can be used against the other co-accused. Therefore, even if there is omission in the statement of Sohan Lal, it does not mean that his explanation can be declared false simply because his wife explained it with better particulars. 10. The accused led the defence evidence. Therefore, even if there is omission in the statement of Sohan Lal, it does not mean that his explanation can be declared false simply because his wife explained it with better particulars. 10. The accused led the defence evidence. (a) Leela Devi (A-3) has tendered in evidence her medico legal certificate Ext.DW-2/A. In this certificate there is mention of six injuries. Although these injuries are simple in nature but it has to be seen whether these injuries are connected with the incident or were received prior to that incident or subsequent to that incident. The prosecution did not explain that these injuries were received by her after this incident or prior to the incident. The case set up by defence is very clear that Leela Devi was cutting grass and complainant persons restrained her from doing so and started beating her while she was alone. (b) DW-2 Dr. Jitender Mahajan, who had examined Leela Devi, recorded her history of having received injuries due to beatings. Therefore, her allegations of having received injuries due to beatings, is corroborated by Dr. Jitender Mahajan. During his cross-examination he stated that Leela Devi was examined on the application of the police. He further stated that it is possible that these injuries can be received if a person falls on a hard surface while running but this is not the case of the prosecution that she received injuries while falling. He further stated that injury No.1 on her nose had a fracture. (c) The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety. He convicted Ashok Kumar for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC but found the role of accused Leela Devi only to the extent of causing simple injury. 11. After going through the records and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court Judge is based on appropriate appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. My reasoning for arriving such opinion is as follows:- Credibility of injured person: 12. Pw-1 Prithvi Singh in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. specifically stated that Sohan Lal and Ashok Kumar were carrying axes and Leela Devi was carrying Danda. He further specifically stated that Ashok Kumar inflicted axe blows on the head of PW-2 Sita Devi. My reasoning for arriving such opinion is as follows:- Credibility of injured person: 12. Pw-1 Prithvi Singh in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. specifically stated that Sohan Lal and Ashok Kumar were carrying axes and Leela Devi was carrying Danda. He further specifically stated that Ashok Kumar inflicted axe blows on the head of PW-2 Sita Devi. He further stated that when he tried to rescue his wife then Sohan Lal inflicted axe blow on his head. However, to the contrary, when Prithvi Singh gave his statement on oath during trial then he made material improvements in his version, took a different stand and stated that Ashok Kumar was armed with Kulhari and accused Sohan Lal and Leela Devi were armed with Danda. Now, it is settled law that statement on oath before the Court during trial is substantial and primary in evidence and it is superior to the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. PW-1 Prithvi contradicted his statement made under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by making material improvements wherein he stated that accused Sohan Lal took Kulhari from Ashok Kumar and then inflicted blow on his head. 13. Now, as per statement of Prithvi Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C, Ashok Kumar and Sohan Lal were axes with them and in the statement made at Court, Sohan Lal was carrying Danda. If Sohan Lal already armed with an axe, then where was the need for him to take axe from Ashok Kumar. There is no allegation that Sohan Lal had inflicted any injury with Danda. 14. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accident had occurred due to prior meeting of mind or was a well planned conspiracy. The bare reading of the evidence suggest that the occurrence had taken place due to some minor issue. The accused were not carrying lethal weapons and they had not come to inflict injuries on them. It is common for the villagers to have these kind of agricultural equipments while working in the fields or when taking care of their crops. It can be safely concluded that the accident occurred at the spur of the moment. There is no evidence that there was meeting of mind. Therefore, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked to attribute all injuries upon Sohan Lal and Leela Devi. It can be safely concluded that the accident occurred at the spur of the moment. There is no evidence that there was meeting of mind. Therefore, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked to attribute all injuries upon Sohan Lal and Leela Devi. Hence, Sohan Lal and Leela Devi are liable only for the individual acts committed by them. The allegation of axe blow by Sohan Lal cannot be believed in view of the contradictions. 15. As far as accused No.3 Leela Devi is concerned, prosecution did not prove that any grievous hurt was caused due to Danda blow. Learned trial Court convicted her for causing simple injury, for which she was convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and was let off under this Section by giving benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and was let off after admonition. 16. Another glaring defect in the case set up by the prosecution is that when the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 on oath as well as under Section 154 Cr.P.C are seen even then no reference is made that of any scuffle with Leela Devi. Law is well settled that the prosecution is not required to explain minor injuries suffered by accused persons and accused cannot derive any benefit simply on this ground. However, absolute silence about the receiving of the injuries by accused No.3 establishes that real genesis of the case was suppressed by PW-1 and PW-2. It cannot be said that PW-1 and PW-2 were sterling witnesses. They could not explain as to how accused Leela Devi received injuries. Therefore, genesis of occurrence was suppressed by PW-1 and PW-2. The latin phrase falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, is not applicable in India. Hence, the entire testimony of these witnesses cannot be thrown away. As already discussed above, their testimonies to the effect that Ashok Kumar had caused injuries on the head of Sita Devi and also on the person of Prithvi Singh with axe cannot be attributed to other accused Sohan Lal and Leela Devi. 17. The other evidence adduced by the prosecution is not relevant to arrive at any different conclusion or to draw any other inference. 18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in any of above said three appeals. All are dismissed. 17. The other evidence adduced by the prosecution is not relevant to arrive at any different conclusion or to draw any other inference. 18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in any of above said three appeals. All are dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, in Sessions trial No. 10/7 of 2006/04 is affirmed and maintained.