ORDER : 1. The instant special leave petition is directed against the judgment dated 7th January, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRAD No. 169 of 2004, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and his conviction as recorded vide judgment dated 18th December, 2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 382 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), was affirmed. 2. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, made extensive submissions craving grant of leave to the petitioner against the impugned judgment. He urged that the testimony of the eyewitness Jaswinder Singh (PW-2), the complainant, is not reliable. In this regard, he tried to persuade this Court to consider the so-called inconsistencies existing inter se between the sworn testimony of Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) vis-à-vis the version as recorded in his Injury Certificate (Exh. P-2). 3. Dr. Singhvi urged that, according to the Injury Certificate (Exh. P-2), Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) reported a history of being assaulted by 6 to 7 individuals using a cricket bat. He argued that if the assault had indeed been carried out by so many persons, Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) would not have sustained only the minimal injuries recorded in the Injury Certificate. Likewise, Amanpreet Singh alias Banni (the deceased), would also have received a significantly greater number of injuries. Dr. Singhvi also emphasised that as a matter of fact, the deceased and the eyewitness were the aggressors in the present case. They trespassed into the office of the complainant and tried to indulge into violence on which the incident took place. 4. Learned counsel urged that neither the trial Court nor the High Court considered the defence evidence in the correct perspective and thus, the impugned judgments are liable to be interfered with. 5. His alternative submission is that the incident took place at the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation. The weapon of offence allegedly used in the incident was a cricket bat and thus, the petitioner cannot be attributed knowledge or intention to cause such injury to the deceased which could lead to his death. Thus, as per learned counsel, the offence would not travel beyond Section 304 Part II of the IPC. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by Dr. Thus, as per learned counsel, the offence would not travel beyond Section 304 Part II of the IPC. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by Dr. Singhvi and have gone through the material placed on record. 7. So far as the first argument raised by the learned counsel regarding the alleged inconsistency in the statement of Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) recorded in the Injury Certificate is concerned, it is sufficient to state that the narrative in the Injury Certificate, wherein it is mentioned that 6 to 7 persons were the assailants, would fall within the category of a previous statement. Unless the witness is confronted with this previous version during cross- examination, any contradiction or inconsistency appearing therein cannot be taken into account as is clear from a plain reading of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding Section 148 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). 8. Having gone through the evidence of Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) the injured eyewitnesses, we find no infirmity in his testimony which can be considered as creating a doubt on his version. His deposition does not suffer from contradictions or omissions or improvements so as to mark a doubt thereupon. 9. Regarding the second argument of Dr. Singhvi for toning down of the offence, we may note that as per the prosecution case, deceased Amanpreet Singh alias Banni and Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) had gone to the office of the accused persons for making a complaint about the loss of signal in the television network. Without any provocation offered by the deceased Amanpreet Singh alias Banni and the Jaswinder Singh (PW-2), the accused persons got enraged and launched an indiscriminate assault on them by using cricket bats which was hit on the head of the Amanpreet Singh alias Banni. The assault proved fatal resulting into the death of Amanpreet Singh alias Banni. The medical jurist has categorically stated that the head injury inflicted to the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 10. We do not find any infirmity in the said version of the prosecution. Hence, the argument advanced by Dr. Singhvi imploring the Court to interfere on the nature of offence is also untenable. 11. The medical jurist has categorically stated that the head injury inflicted to the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 10. We do not find any infirmity in the said version of the prosecution. Hence, the argument advanced by Dr. Singhvi imploring the Court to interfere on the nature of offence is also untenable. 11. The impugned judgment, i.e., judgment dated 7th January, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRAD No. 169 of 2004, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Two Courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded the concurrent findings of facts holding the petitioner guilty and affirming his conviction. We find no reason to interfere in these findings while exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by virtue of Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 12. The special leave petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.