JUDGMENT : (Virender Singh, J.) Appellant-State of H.P. has preferred the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.’), against the judgment of acquittal dated 5.7.2008, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Cr. Appeal No.2 of 2007, titled as, ‘Suresh Kumar and anr. versus State of H.P.’. 2. Vide judgment dated 5.7.2008, the learned First Appellate Court has acquitted the respondents, by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 2.12.2006, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 18-11 of 2002/151-11 of 2002/33-11 of 2006, titled as, ‘State versus Suresh Kumar & others. 3 For the sake of convenience, respondents are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts leading to filing the present petition, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under: The Police of Police Station, Bhoranj has submitted the report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C., before the learned trial Court, on the ground that on 20.2.2002, at about 11:55 p.m. (midnight), Vijay Kumar, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Amroh, telephonically informed the Police that work of laying down the floor in the school, was going on. Thereafter, Suresh Kumar etc. came there and started quarreling with them. As such, he requested that action be taken against them, upon which, ASI Raj Kumar, alongwith Police officials, reached at the spot. At the spot, complainant Pawan Kumar got recorded his statement, under Section 154 Cr. P.C., disclosing therein that he is mason by profession. On 20.2.2002, he was working in Govt. Primary School, Amroh. Alongwith him, Raj Kumar and Jeet Ram were working as labourers, and they were conducting work of laying floor. At about 10: 00 p.m., accused Suresh Kumar came there and asked as to why they were working there, during odd hours, upon which, complainant replied that work of laying floor is going on, upon which, he has started abusing them. On the insistence of the complainant, they are stated to have left the said place. At about 10: 00 p.m., accused Suresh Kumar came there and asked as to why they were working there, during odd hours, upon which, complainant replied that work of laying floor is going on, upon which, he has started abusing them. On the insistence of the complainant, they are stated to have left the said place. However, after some time, he came alogwith his sons, Sunil Kumar and Ajay Kumar, and told the complainant that their Pradhan has made a complaint to the authorities, regarding the fact that he used to sit in the bank, during odd hours, then, how the complainant is working there. Suresh Kumar and his sons abused him and beaten him, with fist blows. Consequently, complainant sustained injuries on his eye. 4.1 According to the complainant, one Shakti Chand, who was working as Head Master in Govt. Middle School, Amroh had gone to Pradhan to inform about the quarrel. However, said Shakti Chad was also stopped by the above three persons, who started abusing him. Sunil Kumar is stated to have inflicted danda blows on the head of Shakti Chand, on the right hand and leg. On hearing the screamings, Pradhan Vijay Kumar and Up-Pradhan Tara Chand reached at the spot and saved the complainant and Shakti Chand. He has prayed that he and Shakti Chand be medico-legally examined. 4.2 On the basis of above facts, the Police registered the FIR under Sections 341, 325, 323, 504 and 34 IPC. Criminal machinery swung into motion. Medico-legal examination of aforesaid persons was conducted at CHC, Bhoranj. As per the MLC, injuries No. 1, 3 and 5 on the person of complainant Pawan Kumar, were found to be simple, whereas, injury No. 2 was advised to be x-rayed. On X-ray, the said injury was declared as grievous hurt. As such, Section 325 of IPC was also added. On the statements of witnesses, Section 451 IPC was deleted. 4.4 The accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet against accused Suresh Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Sunil Kumar was filed, in the Competent Court of law, under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. 5 After securing the presence of the aforesaid accused persons, and complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. 4.4 The accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet against accused Suresh Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Sunil Kumar was filed, in the Competent Court of law, under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. 5 After securing the presence of the aforesaid accused persons, and complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C., the learned trial Court found a prima-facie case, for the commission of offence, punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. As such, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons, vide order dated 17.5.2004. The accused persons have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequently, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence, in order to substantiate the charges, framed against the accused persons. Consequently, the prosecution has examined, as many as, nine witnesses. 6. It is worthwhile to mention here that on 24.6.2006, the learned trial Court has ordered the prosecution to file separate challan, against accused Sunil Kumar, before the appropriate Court, on the basis of copy of date of birth. 7. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused persons have denied the entire case of the prosecution and taken the defence that they are innocent persons. In their defence, the accused persons have examined two witness. 8. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned APP, as well as, learned counsel for the accused, convicted accused Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections, 323 and 325, read with Section 34 IPC. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were further convicted to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one month. The accused persons were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were further convicted to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two months. 9. The accused persons were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were further convicted to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two months. 9. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused persons had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2007, before the learned First Appellate Court, which was allowed, vide judgment dated 5.7.2008. 10. Against the said judgment of acquittal, present appeal has been preferred, assailing the judgment of acquittal, on the ground that learned First Appellate Court has wrongly discarded the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for untenable reasons, in the absence of any proof of animosity. The reasons given by the learned FAC, are stated to be unreasonable and unsustainable. 11. The aforesaid judgment has been assailed further on the ground that the learned First Appellate Court has fallen into error, by setting aside the well reasoned judgment, passed by the learned trial Court. 12. Findings of the learned First Appellate Court have also been challenged on the ground that in view of para-8 of the judgment of the learned trial Court, the learned First Appellate Court, has committed grave irregularity, while observing in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment, that it is not possible, from the evidence to find out as to which was the aggressor party, as the injuries were on the persons of the accused persons also. 13. The judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned First Appellate Court has also been assailed on the ground that presence of accused Ajay Kumar and Sunil Kumar, at the spot, has not been disputed, as defence has examined DW-1 Kiran Kumar, only who has proved that they have also sustained injuries, on 21.2.2002. 14. On the basis of grounds of appeal, a prayer has been made to allow the appeal, by setting aside the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, by restoring the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court. 15. In order to decide the controversy, involved in the preset case, it will be apt, for this Court, to discuss the evidence, so adduced by the prosecution, before the learned trial Court. 16. 15. In order to decide the controversy, involved in the preset case, it will be apt, for this Court, to discuss the evidence, so adduced by the prosecution, before the learned trial Court. 16. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined, as many as, nine witnesses. 17. PW-1 is Pawan Kumar, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by making statement, under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police. According to him, on 20.2.2002, he alongwith Raj Kumar and Jeet Ram, was working in Amroh School and they were laying the floor. At about 10 p.m., Suresh Kumar came there and started abusing them, by saying as to why they were working during night hours. It is further deposition of this witness that Pradhan and Up-Pradhan were also stated to be present there, who took him out of the school. After some time, he, alongwith his sons, Sunil Kumar and Ajay Kumar, came there and started quarreling with him, and also beaten him up. Consequently, this witness has sustained injuries in his right eye. Thereafter, Shakti Chand was also stated to be beaten up by them, with danda, on his head and injuries were also stated to be inflicted, on his arm. 17.1 According to his further deposition, thereafter, Pradhan Vijay Kumar and Up-Pradhan Tara Chand came there, who saved them. Subsequetly, the matter is stated to have been reported to the Police. 17.2 In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the incident had taken place on 20.2.2002, and he was medico legally examined, on 21.2.2002. He has further deposed that on inquiry, he has disclosed the names of the assailants to the Doctor. The distance of the Police Station from the spot is stated to be about 6-7 km. He has further deposed that the matter was reported to the Police, on the night of 20 th February, 2002. He has admitted that Shakti Chand is the Head Master of the Middle School, whereas, this witness is stated to be working in Primary School. 17.3 This witness has further deposed that the work had started at 9 a.m. He has admitted that accused Suresh Kumar inquired from him as to what were they doing there. He has denied the suggestion that he has beaten Jeet Ram, Shakti Chand and Pawan Kumar. Further, he has admitted that a case has already been registered against him. 17.3 This witness has further deposed that the work had started at 9 a.m. He has admitted that accused Suresh Kumar inquired from him as to what were they doing there. He has denied the suggestion that he has beaten Jeet Ram, Shakti Chand and Pawan Kumar. Further, he has admitted that a case has already been registered against him. He has admitted that in the said case, he, Pawan Kumar and Jeet Ram were the accused. 18. PW-2 Vijay Kumar is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. According to him, on 20.2.2002, the work of laying floor was going on, since morning. The said work was being executed by Pawan Kumar, Mason. He has further deposed that Raj Kumar and Jeet Ram were the labourers. The work is stated to have started from morning and continued till night. 18.1 This witness has further deposed that at about 10 p.m., Suresh Kumar came there and started abusing the persons, who were working there. However, this witness took him out of the school and told him to let the workers do their work. However, after some time, he heard the noise of commotion. He has deposed that when, he reached there, he noticed that accused and his sons Sunil Kumar and Ajay Kumar were quarreling with Pawan Kumar, Mason. Shakti Chand is stated to have been beaten up by Suresh Kumar, with danda, upon which, Shakti Chand sustained injuries on his head. This witness has saved him. Thereafter, as per his deposition, the matter was reported to the Police. 18.2 This witness has further deposed that he was also given a push by accused persons. Thereafter, the Police came there and took them away from the spot. 18.3 As per the deposition of this witness, on the next day, Police again visited the spot and taken into possession the danda, vide memo Ext. PW2/A. This witness has identified danda. The wearing apparels of Shakti Chand were also taken into possession. 18.4 This witness has further deposed that the workers were engaged on daily wage basis. As per him, the work was not completed, as such, they continued working till late night. This witness has gone to his house after 10 p.m. 18.5 This witness has admitted that the matter was also reported against him, to the Police. He has admitted that he and Pawan Kumar have faced the trial. As per him, the work was not completed, as such, they continued working till late night. This witness has gone to his house after 10 p.m. 18.5 This witness has admitted that the matter was also reported against him, to the Police. He has admitted that he and Pawan Kumar have faced the trial. This witness has further admitted that Mason and labourers were working in primary school, whereas, Shakti Chand is the Head Master of Middle School. He has denied that on the day of incident, they were consuming liquor in the school and accused Suresh Kumar objected to the same. He has feigned his ignorance about the fact that Suresh Kumar was also medico legally examined. 19. PW-3 Tara Chand, was Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Amroh, at the relevant time. According to him, on 20.2.2002, at about 10 p.m., Mason Pawan Kumar and two labourers were working in Govt. Primary School, Amroh, as they were laying floor in the school. As per this witness, Suresh Kumar came there under the influence of liquor and quarreled with the mason and labourers. He has voluntarily stated that he was taken away from the school. 19.1 This witness was on his way to his home, and half an hour thereafter, he heard the noise of commotion. When, he reached the spot, he noticed that accused Suresh Kumar was having a danda, and he has inflicted the danda blow on the head of Head Master of the school, due to which, he fell down. 19.2 As per this witness, both the sons of accused Suresh Kumar were beating Pawan Kumar. He and Pradhan Vijay Kumar saved them. Thereafter, they were taken to hospital for their medico-legal examination. Police is stated to have visited the spot, on the next day. In the presence of this witness, Police had taken one danda from the spot. Vest of Shakti Chand was also taken into possession, vide memo Ext. PW2/A. This witness has duly identified the danda. 19.3 This witness has admitted that a case was also registered against Pradhan, Pawan Kumar and Jeet Ram. He has feigned his ignorance to the fact as to whether Suresh Kumar was also medico legally examined or not. However, he could not spell out as to how Suresh Kumar sustained injuries. PW2/A. This witness has duly identified the danda. 19.3 This witness has admitted that a case was also registered against Pradhan, Pawan Kumar and Jeet Ram. He has feigned his ignorance to the fact as to whether Suresh Kumar was also medico legally examined or not. However, he could not spell out as to how Suresh Kumar sustained injuries. This witness has stated that he had left the place and came there after half an hour of the incident in question. In the presence of this witness, Suresh Kumar had caught hold of mason Pawan Kumar and was inquiring from him as to what they were doing there. 19.4 As per the deposition of this witness, scuffle had taken place between them. He has admitted that this material fact was got recorded in his statement, Mark-X. He has further admitted that against Pradhan and Pawan Kumar, a case was also registered under Sections 341, 506 and 323 IPC. 20. PW-4 Jeet Ram was working as labourer, at the relevant time. According to him, on 20.2.2002, when, he was working with Pawan Kumar and Raj Kumar, then, at about 10:00 p.m., Suresh Kumar, under the influence of liquor, came there and started abusing them. He has further deposed that Pradhan and Up-Pradhan took him out of the said premises. However, after some time, Suresh Kumar, alongwith both his sons, came there and started abusing and beating them. 20.1 This witness has further stated that Shakti Chand was also beaten by the accused persons with danda and mason Pawan Kumar was beaten by Suresh Kumar with fists and blows. Shakti Chand is stated to have sustained injuries on his head and right arm. As per his further deposition, on hearing commotion, Pradhan and Up-Pradhan came there and saved them. He has also deposed that on the next day, on 21.2.2002, Police came to the spot and took into possession danda, Ext. P-1. This witness has also identified danda, Ext. P1. 20.2 In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the case, arising out of the incident in question, was decided by the Panchayat. Firstly, the proceedings were stated to be conducted by the learned JMFC, Hamirpur. The said case was registered against this witness, Pawan and the Pradhan. Rest of the suggestions have been denied by this witness. 21. P1. 20.2 In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the case, arising out of the incident in question, was decided by the Panchayat. Firstly, the proceedings were stated to be conducted by the learned JMFC, Hamirpur. The said case was registered against this witness, Pawan and the Pradhan. Rest of the suggestions have been denied by this witness. 21. PW-5 Shakti Chand, has deposed that at the relevant time, he was Incharge Head Master Middle School, Amroh. The Primary School was stated to be adjacent to the Middle School. He has deposed that on 20.2.2002, he had gone to Primary School, where work of Verandah was going on. He was called by the Pradhan. At about 10:00 p.m., Suresh Kumar came there and started abusing mason and labourers. He was taken away by Pradhan. 21.1 He has further stated that after some time, he again came alongwith his sons, Ajay Kumar and Sunil Kumar. Thereafter, Suresh Kumar has inflicted a danda blow on his head and hand. Consequently, he sustained fracture on his finger. As per this witness, Pawan Kumar has also sustained injuries. 21.2 In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that someone else was posted as Incharge Head Master of Primary School. Their directorate is also stated to be different. As per the further deposition of this witness, the work was being executed with the funds provided to the Primary School. 21.3 As per further deposition of this witness, Suresh Kumar came there at about 10 p.m. He came back alongwith his sons at about 10:45-11:00 p.m. The scuffle is stated to have taken place for 5-7 minutes. He has further admitted that till the time, he was not present there, no scuffle had taken place. He has admitted that when the accused again came there, then, the scuffle took place. He has admitted that when he got unconsciousness, accused persons might have beaten up by the mason, Pradhan and Up-Pradhan. He has allegedly regained consciousness after 15-20 minutes. 22. PW-7 is Dr. Lalit Kalia, who has examined Incharge, Head Master, Shakti Chand. This witness has admitted that injuries on the person of Shakti Chand, could be possible by fall. 23. Rest of the witnesses are with regard to investigation and Investigating Officer of the case. 24. In this case, the accused persons have examined Dr. Kiran Kumar, Medical Officer, M.O. PHC Bharari, as DW-1. This witness has admitted that injuries on the person of Shakti Chand, could be possible by fall. 23. Rest of the witnesses are with regard to investigation and Investigating Officer of the case. 24. In this case, the accused persons have examined Dr. Kiran Kumar, Medical Officer, M.O. PHC Bharari, as DW-1. He has deposed that on 21.2.2002, he has medically examined Ajay Thakur and found one injury, i.e. lacerated wound, 5 cm in length and ½ cm in width, on the person of Ajay Kumar. The said injury is stated to be simple. Probable duration has been mentioned within 24 hours. On the same day, he has also examined Suresh Kumar and found four injuries on his person. All the injuries were declared as simple. The duration of the injuries was stated to be within 24 hours and kind of weapon used was blunt. He has proved MLCs of above two persons Ext. DW1/A and Ext. DW1/B. 24.1 In the cross-examination, conducted by the learned APP, this witness has admitted that the persons examined by him, had not disclosed the cause of injuries. Lastly, he has admitted that the injuries, as mentioned in the documents, Ext. DW1/A and Ext. DW1/B, could be caused by fall, on irregular/rough space. 25. DW-2 is HC Mohinder Kumar. He has proved rapat No. 25, Ext. DW2/A. 26. This is the entire evidence led before the learned trial Court. 27. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, learned trial Court has convicted the accused persons, as referred to above. However, the learned First Appellate Court has acquitted the accused persons, mainly on the ground that although, occurrence has been admitted in this case, but, no evidence has been put forward by the prosecution to show as to which party was the aggressor. The prosecution was duty bound, to put before the Court, all the relevant facts and it is for the Court to decide the fact as to who was the aggressor. 28. PWs 1, 2 and 3 have admitted the fact that they had also faced the trial arising out of the incident in question. The factum of scuffle also stood probabilized from the documentary evidence Ext. DW1/A and DW1/B, which are MLCs of Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar. Ext. 28. PWs 1, 2 and 3 have admitted the fact that they had also faced the trial arising out of the incident in question. The factum of scuffle also stood probabilized from the documentary evidence Ext. DW1/A and DW1/B, which are MLCs of Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar. Ext. DW2/A is the rapat, lodged by accused Ajay Kumar, in which, he has alleged against Pradhan Vijay Kumar, Gram Panchayat, Amroh; Pawan Kumar and Shakti Chand, regarding the fact that all the three had been beaten up by the aforesaid persons. The said report was lodged by Ajay Kumar and Suresh Kumar, at 3:10 a.m., on 21.2.2002. From this fact, it has rightly been pointed out by learned counsel for the accused, in this case that genesis of the occurrence has been withheld, by the prosecution from the scrutiny of the Court. 29. When, the real facts have not been produced before the Court, then, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly discarded the version of the prosecution, by acquitting the accused persons. 30. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses is to be considered as a whole and not in piecemeal. In this case, learned trial Court has only reproduced the evidence, so adduced, by the prosecution and straightaway came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case, against all the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, convicted the accused persons. 31. As per the evidence, discussed above, injuries found on the persons of accused, have not even been mentioned in the report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C., what to talk about explaining those injuries. 32. The learned First Appellate Court has rightly discussed the evidence and thereafter, the judgment of acquittal has been passed. The said judgment, by no stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be falling within the definition of ‘perverse findings’, as the evidence, which has been produced by the accused, before the learned trial Court, has also been taken into consideration, whereas, the learned trial Court, in the judgment, assailed before the learned First Appellate Court, has not even mentioned the factual position, as deposed by DW-1, as well as, the documents adduced by the accused persons, in evidence, in this case, what to talk of discussing the evidence. 33. 33. At the time of deciding the case, evidence produced by both the parties should be discussed and after considering the evidence, legal conclusion should be drawn. As such, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal, preferred by the accused, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court. 34. After acquittal, presumption of innocence, which was available to the accused persons, at the time of commencement of the trial, before the learned trial Court, becomes double. Thus, this Court is of the view that the view taken by the learned First Appellate Court, is the correct view, which according to the evidence, so adduced, by the prosecution, is probable in this case. 35. No other point is urged or argued. 36. Consequently, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court. As such, the present appeal is dismissed, and the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, is upheld. Bail bonds discharged. 37. The pending application (s), if any, are also disposed of. 38. Record be sent down.