JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Both these appeals have been heard and are being decided together as these arise out of the same judgment of acquittal. 2. Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2012 has been filed by the victim, whereas Cr. Appeal No. 284 of 2012 has been filed by the State. 3. The respondents have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 307, 451, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., vide judgment dated 19.11.2011 passed in Session Trial No. 6­ NL/7 of 2010. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Husan Chand, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2012, was a liquor licencee, having one of the vends at village Karsauli in District Solan. The Karsauli vend was being run in a tenanted premises owned by respondent No.1 Darshan Singh. 5. On 31.03.2009, an FIR was registered at Police Station Nalagarh, at about 9.00 P.M. The FIR was based on a statement Ex.PW1/A of Gurdeep Singh (PW­1) recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. It was alleged that on 31.03.2009, the complainant (PW­1) was present in the liquor vend Karsauli along with the licencee Husan Chand (PW­2), salesmen namely Gurdhian Singh (PW­3) and Anil Kumar. Complainant, claimed himself to be the supervisor employed by PW­2 Husan Chand for supervising the work of his liquor vends. As per complainant, the licencee Husan Chand had taken on rent adjoining shop of one Shri Ashok Kumar for opening the vend for the next financial year. The complainant along with salesmen were in the process of dismantling the railings installed in the shop of respondent No.1 Darshan Singh for being installed in the shop of Ashok Kumar. In the meantime, respondent No.1 Darshan Singh along with his three brothers came outside the liquor vend and started asking for the rent. He was informed that he would be paid rent at 9.00 P.M., on this Darshan Singh starting hurling abuses. All these persons came inside the liquor vend and started giving beatings with the help of sticks. Darshan Singh gave blow on the head of Husan Chand and brothers of Darshan Singh also followed the pursuit. The complainant and his associates were thrown out from the vend and the vend was locked by the respondents. All these persons came inside the liquor vend and started giving beatings with the help of sticks. Darshan Singh gave blow on the head of Husan Chand and brothers of Darshan Singh also followed the pursuit. The complainant and his associates were thrown out from the vend and the vend was locked by the respondents. Husan Chand received injuries on the head and he was taken to hospital by Anil Kumar. Thereafter, the respondents fled from the scene. 6. Husan Chand was medically examined at PHC Joghon on 31.03.2009 by Dr. S. S. Bawa. MLC Ex.PW5/B was issued. Dr. S.S. Bawa opined the injuries received by Husan Chand on his head to be dangerous to life. Husan Chand was subjected to x­rays and CT scan; however, no fracture or serious injury was found to the brain. 7. Police completed the investigation and challaned the respondents. They were charged and finally acquitted by the learned trial Court as above. Hence, these appeals. 8. We have heard Shri H.S. Rana Advocate and Shri I.N. Mehta Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Ms. Devyani Sharma Senior Advocate with Shri Basant Pal Advocate for respondents 1 and 4 and have also carefully gone through the records. 9. Shri H.S. Rana, Advocate, for victim Husan Chand has contended that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is not only against the material proved on record, but also qualifies to be termed as perverse. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly proved that the respondents were aggressors and had not only trespassed but had caused life endangering injuries on the person of Husan Chand, which fact was proved on record beyond all shadows of doubt by way of prosecution evidence. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Basant Thakur, Advocate, supported the judgment passed by learned trial Court. She laid stress on the point that prosecution had failed to explain the injuries suffered by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As per her, it had duly been proved on record that respondents No. 1 and 2 had also reported the same incident to the police, but except for recording their version by way of DDR, nothing further was done. No FIR was registered. Ms. 1 and 2. As per her, it had duly been proved on record that respondents No. 1 and 2 had also reported the same incident to the police, but except for recording their version by way of DDR, nothing further was done. No FIR was registered. Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, drew our attention to the deposition of PW­9 SI Ram Asra the Investigating Officer of the case, wherein an admission was made with respect to the matter having been reported by respondents No.1 and 2 to the police and also the said respondents having been got medically examined. 11. The prosecution has examined PW­1 to PW­3 as eye witnesses of the incident. PW­9 Ram Asra is the Investigating Officer. The respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It will be relevant to notice the defence put up by respondents not only during the cross­examination of prosecution witnesses but by answering question No.13 of the statement(s) under Section 313, Cr.P.C., in the following terms:­ “Q­13. Do you want to say anything else? Ans: I am innocent. The liquor contractor Hussan Chand along with his salesmen had given me beatings when I resisted shifting of their articles from the tenanted premises without payment of rent upto date and thereby I sustained injury and the matter was reported to the police which was incorporated in the daily diary Ex. DX on the same day, but the police did not inquire into my complaint against the complainant party as the liquor contractor had taken on rent my shops and when he started shifting his articles without making payment of rent despite my demand, thereby the liquor contractor has implicated me in a false case.” 12. Noticeably, respondents neither opted to examine themselves as their own witness nor chose to lead any other evidence. 13. The respondents primarily have been acquitted by the learned trial Court on the ground that some of them had also suffered injuries. Learned trial Court took notice of the admission made by the Investigating Officer while being cross­examined to the effect that the daily diary report Ex. DX was recorded on the complaint of accused party and further that the respondents Darshan Singh and Krishan Singh had also received injuries and were got medically examined. Learned trial Court took notice of the admission made by the Investigating Officer while being cross­examined to the effect that the daily diary report Ex. DX was recorded on the complaint of accused party and further that the respondents Darshan Singh and Krishan Singh had also received injuries and were got medically examined. Learned trial Court then proceeded to hold that since the injuries on the person of respondents Darshan Singh and Krishan Singh remained unexplained, they were entitled to the benefit. 14. We are unable to concur with the view taken by learned trial Court, which is not in conformity with the settled principle of law. In Rajender Singh and others vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 , it has been held as under:­ “4. So far as the question whether non­explanation of the injuries on accused Rajender ipso facto can be held to be fatal to the prosecution case, it is too well settled that ordinarily the prosecution is not obliged to explain each injury on an accused even though the injuries might have been caused in course of the occurrence, if the injuries are minor in nature, but at the same time if the prosecution fails to explain a grievous injury on one of the accused person which is established to have been caused in course of the same occurrence then certainly the Court looks at the prosecution case with little suspicion on the ground that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the incident. In the case in hand accused appellant Rajender had one penetrating wound, three incised wound and one lacerated wound and of these injuries the penetrating wound on the left axillary area in the 5th inter costal space ½ x 1/3 x ¾ was grevious in nature as per the evidence of doctor PW­3 who had examined him. On the basis of the evidence of PW­3 as well as PW­11 the Courts have come to the conclusion that there is no room for doubt that the appellants and their men had injuries on their person on the date of occurrence. The question, therefore, remains to be considered is whether non­explanation of said injuries on accused appellant Rajender can form the basis of a conclusion that the prosecution version is untrue. The question, therefore, remains to be considered is whether non­explanation of said injuries on accused appellant Rajender can form the basis of a conclusion that the prosecution version is untrue. In Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai vs. State of Bihar AIR 1968 SC 1281 this Court had held that the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused shows that the evidence of the prosecution witness relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true and further those injuries probabilise plea taken by the accused persons. But in Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 671, this Court considered Mohar Rai (Supra) and came to hold that non­explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case and such non­explanation may assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. The question was considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P. (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 190, and this Court held that if the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and the Court can distinguish the truth from the falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence and consequently the whole case and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In Vijayee Singhs case (supra) the Court held that non­explanation of injury on the accused person does not affect the prosecution case as a whole. 5. This question again came up before a three Judge Bench recently in case of Ram Sunder Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 365, where this Court re­affirmed the statement of law made by the earlier three Judge Bench in Vijayee Singhs case(supra) and also relied upon another three Judge Bench decision of the Court in Bhaba Nanda Sarma and Others vs. State of Assam (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 396, and as such accepted the principle that if the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy then non­explanation of the injury on the accused ipso facto cannot be a basis to discard the entire prosecution case. The High Court in the impugned judgment has relied upon the aforesaid principle and examined the evidence of the four eye witnesses and agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and, therefore, non­ explanation of injury in question cannot be held to be fatal, and we see no infirmity with the said conclusion in view of the law laid down by this Court, as held earlier. We, therefore, are not persuaded to accept the first submission of Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused appellants.” 15. In Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 11 SCC 328 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: ­ “21. It is also well settled that the prosecution is not called upon to explain each and every injury on the person of an accused and in this view of the matter the non­explanation of an insignificant injury on the person of only one does not dislodge the prosecution story.” 16. In Mano Dutt and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012)4 SCC 79 , it has been held as under:­ 38. The question, raised before this Court for its consideration, is with respect to the effect of non­ explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons. In this regard, this Court has taken a consistent view that the normal rule is that whenever the accused sustains injury in the same occurrence in which the complainant suffered the injury, the prosecution should explain the injury upon the accused. But, it is not a rule without exception that if the prosecution fails to give explanation, the prosecution case must fail. 39. Before the non­explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses, may be held to affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the injuries on the person of the accused were also of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. 40. 40. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy; and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries on the person of the accused are not explained by the prosecution cannot, by itself, be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently, the whole case of the prosecution. Reference in this regard can be made to Rajender Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [ (2000) 4 SCC 298 ], Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [ (1998) 7 SCC 365 , and Vijayee Singh v. Stateo of U.P. [ (1990) 3 SCC 190 ].” 17. In Dashrath alias Jolo and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018)4 SCC 428 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position as under:­ “8. The next contention urged by learned counsel is that the prosecution has not chosen to explain the injuries on the person of the appellants and this is fatal to case of prosecution. It cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so, the prosecution case should be disbelieved. Before holding that non­ explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. [vide Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 1454]. 9. By going through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the High Court, it is seen that the injuries sustained by the appellants were simple in nature and while so it was not incumbent upon the prosecution to explain those injuries. It is also relevant to note the answers elicited from the doctors that those injuries found on the accused could be self inflicted.” 18. It is also relevant to note the answers elicited from the doctors that those injuries found on the accused could be self inflicted.” 18. Reverting to the facts of the case, what can be made out from the deposition of Investigating Officer SI Ram Asra PW­9 is that respondents Darshan Singh and Krishan Singh had also suffered injuries and they were also got medically examined. As per the fact suggested to the investigating officer on behalf of the respondents during the course of his cross­examination, the injuries suffered by respondents No.1 and 2 were simple in nature. Thus, in light of the principle of law enunciated above, the simple injuries, if any, received by respondents No.1 and 2 could not be of any help to the accused persons for the reasons, firstly, that the nature of injuries was simple; secondly, in absence of any specific defence evidence led by respondents, the injuries, if at all suffered by respondents No.1 and 2 could not be attributed to the appellant or his associates and lastly, the evidence led by the prosecution was clear and unambiguous. 19. The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 as spot witnesses. Their statements were consistent as to the sequence of events that had taken place on spot. The defence had not been able to shatter their depositions. All these witnesses had unanimously stated that on 31.03.2009, they along with one Anil Kumar were in the process of shifting the liquor vend from the shop owned by one Darshan Singh to the shop of PW­4 Ashok Kumar. As per their version, the respondents had called bad names and had also objected the shifting of liquor vend by demanding the rent as a precondition. The beatings being inflicted upon PW­2 Husan Chand and his employees have also been asserted. The receipt of injuries on the person of PW­2 Husan Chand also has been established to be the result of blows inflicted with “dandas” (sticks) by respondents. 20. PW­2 Husan Chand had been examined by Dr. S.S. Bawa at PHC Joghon on the same day. He had issued MLC Ex.PW5/B. PW­5 had noticed following injuries on the person of PW­2 Husan Chand:­ “1. There was an open wound present on the right side of occipital area around 1.5 inches in length. Wound margins were gaping with crushed superficial tissue. S.S. Bawa at PHC Joghon on the same day. He had issued MLC Ex.PW5/B. PW­5 had noticed following injuries on the person of PW­2 Husan Chand:­ “1. There was an open wound present on the right side of occipital area around 1.5 inches in length. Wound margins were gaping with crushed superficial tissue. The area was tender on touch and profusely bleeding on examination. 2. There was another similar wound around 1.5 to 2 inches in length on the anterior of the first wound. The wound was gapping with blood flowing profusely at the area. 3. There was another wound around 2.5 cm on edge of second wound with deep edge gaping and blood flowing from it. 4. There was bruise marks present on the right and left hand fingers. 5. The left temperomandibular joint was swollen and odemotous, making difficult for the person to open the mouth.” Dr. S.S. Bawa specifically deposed during the trial that since the patient had arrived with altered sensorium and was bleeding from the injured area of scalp wound as mentioned in the MLC and having the features of high blood pressure, blood loss and features of raised intracranial pressure, if left unattended could be fatal to life in due course. PW­5 did not rule out possibility that the injuries found on the persons of PW­2 could have been caused by sticks used by respondents. Though, in cross­ examination PW­5 stated that the injuries observed on the person of injured as per MLC Ex.PW5/B could be caused if a person in a scuffle is hit by a blunt and hard object, however, looking at the background of facts, such suggestion on the part of the respondents/accused persons further fortified the hypothesis otherwise drawn by PW­5 with respect to the cause of injuries. 21. PW­1 had informed the police telephonically and on such information DDR Ex.PW6/A had been recorded at Police Post Joghon at 6.30 P.M. on 31st March, 2009. MLC Ex.PW5/B records that PW­2 Husan Chand had arrived at the PHC Joghon at 8.05 P.M. Statement of PW­1 Gurdeep Singh was recorded at 8.00 P.M. and the FIR Ex.PW9/B was recorded at 9.00 PM. Thus, there is nothing on record to suggest that any manipulation had been made. 22. MLC Ex.PW5/B records that PW­2 Husan Chand had arrived at the PHC Joghon at 8.05 P.M. Statement of PW­1 Gurdeep Singh was recorded at 8.00 P.M. and the FIR Ex.PW9/B was recorded at 9.00 PM. Thus, there is nothing on record to suggest that any manipulation had been made. 22. Further, as noticed above, the respondents had not denied the incident, rather they had put up the defence that respondents No.1 and 2 were given beatings by Husan Chand and his salesmen. From the cross­ examinations of PW­1 to PW­3, it can also be gathered that as per respondents, though injuries suffered by PW­2 were in the same incident, but were result of sticks being wielded at respondents by the employees of Husan Chand. Respondents have failed to probabelise the defence. Hence, the prosecution had been able to prove through the clear, convincing and cogent evidence that the respondents in furtherance of their common intention had trespassed into the liquor vend under the tenancy of PW­2 Husan Chand and had also inflicted injuries on said Husan Chand. 23. It is revealed from the statement of PW­5 that as per Skia­grams Ex.PW5/D­1 to Ex.PW5/D­4, its report Ex.PW5/D­5, Citi­scan report Ex.PW5/E­1 and the injuries found on the person of PW­2 Husan Chand were simple in nature. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, intention or knowledge necessary for proof of offence under Section 307 of the IPC against the respondent has not been established. Nonetheless, the injuries found on the persons of PW­2 Husan Chand have been proved to be inflicted by respondents in furtherance of their common intention with the help of sticks after trespassing into the liquor vend of PW­2, therefore, the commission of offences under Sections 451 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC are proved to have been committed by the respondents. 24. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that the scope of interference by Appellate Court in order of acquittal is very minimal. No doubt, the order of acquittal can be interfered by the Appellate Court only, in case, the findings and conclusions as recorded by the learned trial Court are found to be perverse or not in conformity with the material on record. No doubt, the order of acquittal can be interfered by the Appellate Court only, in case, the findings and conclusions as recorded by the learned trial Court are found to be perverse or not in conformity with the material on record. In light of what has been discussed above, we have no hesitation to say that the learned trial Court has completely ignored the material legal evidence on record as also an important legal aspect related therewith. As noticed above, the respondents could not have been given benefit of the fact that some simple injuries were also found on the person of respondents No.1 and 2 on their medical examination more particularly without any proof as to the cause of such injuries. Even otherwise the simple injuries so suffered by respondents 1 and 2 could not be considered to be antithetical to the prosecution case in light of clear, specific and cogent evidence regarding the mode and manner in which the incident had occurred. 25. Consequently, both these appeals are allowed and judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Session Trial No. 6­NL/7 of 2010 on 19.11.2011, is set aside. 26. As per the record respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Krishan Singh and Dilbag Singh, are stated to have already died. Thus, respondent No.1 Darshan Singh and respondent No.4 Prem Singh are held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and they are accordingly convicted for the aforesaid offences. Respondents No.1 Darshan Singh and respondent No.4 Prem Singh be produced before this Court on 26.2.2024, when they will be heard on quantum of sentence.