Judgment : Virender Singh, J. Petitioner-Amrit Singh has filed the present Criminal Revision, under Section 397 , read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated 03.06.2013, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 60-S/10 of 12/08, titled as ‘Amrit Singh versus State of H.P’. 2. By way of judgment dated 03.06.2013, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by petitioner-Amrit Singh, which he had preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2008 and order of sentence dated 29.04.2008, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Case No.217/2 of 2007/05, titled as ‘State of H.P. versus Amrit Singh’. 3. Vide judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2008 and order of sentence dated 29.04.2008, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Sections 452 , 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention and Damage to the Public Property Act, (hereinafter referred to as PDPP Act) and sentenced him, as under:- 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court. 5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present Criminal Revision, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- 5.1. Police of Police Station Rohru, submitted a charge sheet, against the accused, in case FIR No.05 of 2005, which was registered, under Sections 452 , 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, before the learned trial Court, on the ground that complainant-Tara Chand son of Som Nath, made a statement to the police, under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., disclosing therein, that he is working as Fisheries Officer, in Trout Farm Dhamwari. On 02.01.2005, at about 5:00 PM, Shri Bhawani Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Tikkari and Chaman Lal, Up Pradhan, came to the complainant. Bhawani Singh is stated to be executing the work of construction of boundary wall in the Fishery Farm. On 02.01.2005, at about 5:00 PM, Shri Bhawani Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Tikkari and Chaman Lal, Up Pradhan, came to the complainant. Bhawani Singh is stated to be executing the work of construction of boundary wall in the Fishery Farm. At about 10:00 PM, when complainant, Bhawani Singh, Chaman Lal, Chain Singh, Regional Assistant (Fisheries), Dhani Ram, were sitting in the office, then, younger brother of Pradhan Bhawani Singh, namely Amrit Singh (accused), came in front of the office, under the influence of liquor. He knocked the door, upon which, Chain Singh opened the same. Thereafter, accused Amrit Singh had inflicted blow of Daraat, on Chain Singh, the said blow landed on the forehead of Chain Singh. 5.2. After sustaining injury, Chain Singh, ran inside the room, thereafter, Amrit Singh, entered in the room and also attacked the complainant with Daraat. The said blow has landed on the hands of complainant. Resultantly, middle fingers of his left hand were chopped off and hanged with skin. Similarly, complainant has also sustained injuries on his right hand. After sustaining injuries, the complainant, fell on the floor. Amrit Singh, thereafter, started beating him, due to which, he has suffered injuries all over his body. Bhawani Singh tried to save the complainant, but, accused also inflicted injuries to him. Thereafter, Amrit Singh had damaged the articles lying in the office and thereafter, fled away from the spot. 5.3. On the basis of the above facts, he has prayed that action be taken against accused Amrit Singh, upon which, the FIR in question was registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. Chain Singh and Bhawani Singh, were medico legally examined. Their MLCs were obtained. Tara Chand was referred to IGMC Shimla, by Medical Officer. Spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Physical evidence from the spot was also taken into possession. On the basis of the MLCs, Section 307 of IPC was added, later on. 5.4. During investigation, accused produced the weapon of offence, which was also taken into possession. On the basis of the final opinion, Section 307 IPC was deleted and Section 326 was added, in this case. 5.5 After completion of investigation, charge sheet, under Sections 452 , 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, was filed, before the learned trial Court. On the basis of the final opinion, Section 307 IPC was deleted and Section 326 was added, in this case. 5.5 After completion of investigation, charge sheet, under Sections 452 , 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, was filed, before the learned trial Court. 5.6 After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. the learned trial Court found a prima- facie case for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 452 , 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, and accordingly charges were framed against him, for which, the accused has not pleaded guilty. Consequently, the prosecution has been directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. 5.7. After the closure of the evidence, entire incriminating evidence against the accused was put to him in the statement, recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, he has taken the defence that he is innocent person. However, in his defence, no evidence has been led by him. The learned trial Court, after, hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned defence counsel appearing for the accused, has convicted and sentenced him, as referred above. 5.8. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the accused unsuccessfully assailed the same before the learned Appellate Court. 5.9 After dismissal of his appeal, the accused- appellant has preferred the present criminal revision, before this Court, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, before this Court, on the ground that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court is against the law and facts of the case and the contradictory stands taken by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-12 have not been considered by the learned trial Court properly. 5.10 According to the appellant-accused, the learned trial Court has not considered the fact that PW-3 and PW- 10, which were allegedly examined by the prosecution, as alleged eye-witnesses, when, appeared in the witness box, have turned hostile. 5.11. Highlighting the fact that PW-7, categorically stated, on oath, that the weapon of offence was given to the police by complainant and this fact has not been considered by the learned trial Court. 5.11. Highlighting the fact that PW-7, categorically stated, on oath, that the weapon of offence was given to the police by complainant and this fact has not been considered by the learned trial Court. The evidence of PW-10, has wrongly given extra weightage, by the learned trial Court, as according to the accused, there was family dispute between accused and PW-10. 5.12. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, appearing for the accused has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed, by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 5.13. Per Contra, Shri Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and the said findings have rightly been upheld by the learned Appellate Court and as such, according to learned Additional Advocate General, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned findings, recorded by the learned trial Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 7. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the evidence, so adduced, before the leaned trial Court. After framing the charge, when, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence, the prosecution has examined as many as, 18 witnesses. 8. PW-1, is complainant-injured Tara Chand. According to him, in the year 2003, he was posted as Fisheries Officer, Dhamwari. On 02.01.2005, at about 10:00 PM, he, along with Chain Singh, Dhani Ram, was present in his office, then, accused came there and knocked the door. Chain Singh opened the door. As soon as, Chain Singh had opened the door, accused, who was having a big sickle (Daraat) in his hand, inflicted a Daraat blow, on Chain Singh, consequently, Chain Singh, sustained injuries on his forehead. Chain Singh, got injured. Thereafter, Amrit Singh (accused) came inside the office and inflicted a Daraat blow to him. This witness had tried to save himself, by raising his hands, therefore, that blow landed on the hands and his middle fingers chopped off, but, hanged with skin. 9. Chain Singh, got injured. Thereafter, Amrit Singh (accused) came inside the office and inflicted a Daraat blow to him. This witness had tried to save himself, by raising his hands, therefore, that blow landed on the hands and his middle fingers chopped off, but, hanged with skin. 9. As per the further deposition of the complainant, he had also inflicted injuries, on his legs and the accused had also damaged the articles lying in the office. He damaged pen stand, tray, window panes, two cups, and thereafter, had fled away from the spot. Thereafter, this witness lodged FIR against the accused and police has recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A, and got him medico legally examined. For further treatment, he was referred to IGMC, Shimla. He remained on medical rest for three months. During investigation, his blood stained clothes, were taken into possession. When, the weapon of offence, Ex.P3, was shown to him, he identified the same, as the weapon, with whom, the accused has inflicted injuries, upon him. 10. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the office timing were from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM, however, at 10:00 PM, he, along with Chain Singh, Dhani Ram, Chaman Lal and Bhawani Singh, was present there in the office. They were sitting in a room of the office. They were there in order to check the water level, as the same is required to be checked on hourly basis. This witness was Incharge of the Fisheries Centre at the relevant time. His staff was consisting of four members, two Field Officers, one Part-Time Sweeper. Duty time of the part-time sweeper was from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM. Field Officers used to be deputed at Fisheries Farm. This witness has admitted that he is not having residence in the Fisheries Farm, however, staff quarters were there. Chowkidar was engaged, in the year 2005. Usually, they go to bed at about 11:00-12:00 PM, however, one person remained on duty to check the water level. 11. He has further deposed that in the month of May, he used to reside in his residence at Dhamwari. Sometimes, all the three used to stay in the Farm. Chaman Singh came with Bhawani Singh, whereas Chain Singh and Dhani Ram were present there in order to check the water level of the tank. All of them were present in the residential room. Sometimes, all the three used to stay in the Farm. Chaman Singh came with Bhawani Singh, whereas Chain Singh and Dhani Ram were present there in order to check the water level of the tank. All of them were present in the residential room. They stayed in the room up to 9:00 PM, thereafter, they had gone to their residential room. Whenever, they used to take rest, then, they used to go to residential quarter. According to this witness, he does not take liquor, as he has denied the suggestion that at the relevant time, they were consuming liquor in the Farm house, however, the Field Assistant also does not take liquor. Bhawani Singh has been allotted the work of construction of boundary wall and in order to supervise the same, Bhawani Singh came to the Farm house. On the day of incident, during the evening time, Bhawani Singh, came to Farm house, in order to supervise the work. He has denied the suggestion that they were under the influence of liquor, thereafter, they had quarrelled with each other and damaged the articles lying in the office. He has also denied the suggestion that Amrit Singh, in order to search Bhawani Singh, came there and tried to intervene between them, when, they were fighting with each other. He has further deposed that after the incident, he and other two officials of the Department had gone to hospital at Sandhasu, whereas, Bhawani Singh had gone to Chirgaon to inform the police. Amrit Singh has visited the spot on three occasions, firstly, he had visited at about 4:00 PM, then at 9:00 PM and thereafter, at 10:00 PM. When, accused came at 4:00 PM, he has not said anything to them, whereas, when, he came about quarter past nine, he had inquired, as what they are doing. The door of the Farm house was opened at 4:00 PM, whereas, the same was closed at 9:00 PM, but, the same was not bolted from inside, however, the same was closed at 10:00 PM. On the third occasion, they opened the door, due to the fact that accused was knocking the same. This witness has admitted that neither he nor any Field Staff was having any animosity with accused. On the third occasion, they opened the door, due to the fact that accused was knocking the same. This witness has admitted that neither he nor any Field Staff was having any animosity with accused. He has further admitted that the blood stains were in the office, as well as, residential room, whereas, alleged quarrel had taken place in the office room. When, the accused allegedly inflicted the Daraat blow to this witness, he was alone in the room, as Chain Singh was lying unconscious in the residential room, whereas, Bhawani Singh, Chaman Lal had already left the place prior to the alleged quarrel with accused. Similarly, Dhani Ram has also fled away from the spot prior to the incident. At the time of incident, only two persons were there. Rest of the suggestions, which were put to this witness have been denied by him. 12. PW-2, Chain Singh, deposed that in the year 2005, he was posted, as Field Assistant, in the Fisheries Department, in Trout Farm Dhamwari. According to him, there were no residential quarter for the field staff, in Dhamwari, however, the staff used to reside in the adjoining room of the office. The office is consisting of three rooms, one is being used, as office, other is being used as store and third is being used as residential. On 02.01.2005 at about 10:00 PM, this witness was present in his room and along with Dhani Ram, Fisheries Officer, Tara Chand was also present there. Bhawani Singh, Tara Chand and other two- three persons were present in the office, who were not known to this witness. The accused came there at about 10:00 PM, prior to this, he came there at about 8:00 PM, and he was forced to leave the said place, by his brother Bhawani Singh. 13. Accused came there at 10:00 PM, under the influence of liquor and he had knocked the door. When, the door was opened, he was having a Daraat in his hand and inflicted the injuries on the head of this witness and thereafter, this witness entered in the room while screaming. In the room, Fisheries Officer, Tara Chand and Bhawani Singh were present. As soon as, complainant Bhawani Singh had seen the injury, the accused had already moved inside. In the room, Fisheries Officer, Tara Chand and Bhawani Singh were present. As soon as, complainant Bhawani Singh had seen the injury, the accused had already moved inside. Accused firstly, attacked upon his brother Bhawani Singh, however, he had saved himself and left the said place and behind Bhawani Singh, Tara Chand was present, thereafter accused has attacked upon him with Daraat, on his head. In order to save himself, the complainant, had blocked the blow with both his hands and consequently, his two fingers had chopped off and blood started oozing out, on the floor, as well as, on the clothes of the complainant. The accused fled away from, the spot. Prior to leaving the spot, he had destroyed the window panes and also caused damage to the other articles. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to Sandhasu Hospital, where, he made the statement to the police, upon which, the police registered the case. The blood stained clothes, were taken into possession. The blood stains, were also lifted from the spot by the police. 14. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that whenever, the person attacks from the front side, the person, upon whom, the attack is being made, in order to save himself, tries to retreat. The Daraat (big sickle) with which, this witness was attacked, was having the iron handle. This witness has sustained injuries with the handle of the Daraat. Due to the blow of Daraat, this witness has not sustained injuries. As soon as, the accused inflicted the Daraat blow, this witness had ran towards the room. In the said room, Tara Chand, Bhawani Singh and Dhani Ram, Field Assistant, were sitting and other persons were also there, however, he does not remember the names of those persons. As soon as, this witness entered the room, Bhawani Singh came out in the Gallery, then, accused attacked upon him. When, the accused tried to attack them, all the persons present there, in order to save themselves, had fled away from there. Tara Chand had fled towards Gallery side, accused had beaten them, with the Daraat. Bhawani Singh had also been attacked by the accused and the accused had not sustained injury. When, accused inflicted injury on Tara Chand, the weapon of offence i.e. Daraat, was also having blood stains on it and accused fled away along with the Daraat. Tara Chand had fled towards Gallery side, accused had beaten them, with the Daraat. Bhawani Singh had also been attacked by the accused and the accused had not sustained injury. When, accused inflicted injury on Tara Chand, the weapon of offence i.e. Daraat, was also having blood stains on it and accused fled away along with the Daraat. When, the Daraat was shown to him, blood stains were not on the Darrat, as the incident had taken place at about 1½ years ago. When, Tara Chand was attacked with Daraat, this witness was present there at the spot and accused had inflicted the Daraat blow from a distance about one feet. This witness is not having any inimical relation with the accused. 15. At the time of incident, Tara Chand was only wearing pant and shirt and this witness has worn Kurta- Pajama. This witness has further admitted that he had reached in the room, the quarrel had already taken place. Accused had visited the Fisheries Farm, twice or thrice, on that day. When, the accused visited the Fisheries Farm, for the first time, he was not present there, however, he has visited the Fisheries Farm at about 8:00-8:15 PM, at that time all persons were present there. According to him, quarrel had already taken place at about 8:00-8:15 PM and thirdly, the accused came at about 10:00 PM. Tara Chand sustained injuries, when the accused came there for third time. Room was bolted from inside, so that the accused may not harass them. On third occasion, door was opened with the impression that some other person might be there. He has further admitted that when, he reached in the office room, incident had already taken place and crockery pieces scattered there. 16. According to PW-3, Chaman Lal, at the relevant time, he was Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Tikkri. On the relevant day, after attending the General House, he had gone towards Bus Stand, where Bhawani Singh was present. Thereafter, both of them had gone to Dhamwari, as Bhawani Singh had undertaken the work for raising boundary wall in the Trout Farm. In the evening, this witness had gone to his in-laws house and in his presence, nothing had taken place. Thereafter, both of them had gone to Dhamwari, as Bhawani Singh had undertaken the work for raising boundary wall in the Trout Farm. In the evening, this witness had gone to his in-laws house and in his presence, nothing had taken place. Since this witness had resiled from his statement given to the police, as such, on the request of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned trial Court has declared this witness, as hostile. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that the accused is his brother in relation. Rest of the suggestions, which were put to him by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to prove the case of the prosecution, have been denied by this witness. 17. PW-4, Amar Bahadur, has deposed that when, Chain Singh came to his house at 12:00-12:30 PM, he has disclosed that a quarrel had taken place with Tara Chand and he has to be taken to hospital. He has not disclosed the name of the person, who has inflicted the injuries to him. When, he has gone to the office of Tara Chand, he noticed that the fingers of Tara Chand were chopped. Thereafter he was taken to hospital for treatment. This witness was also declared as hostile, at the request of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, by the learned trial Court. According to this witness, he has seen the accused for the first time, in the Court. Despite best efforts, made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing material could be elicited from him. 18. PW-5, Pyare Lal, has deposed that on 03.01.2005, when, he had gone to his duty, as, he was working as part time Sweeper, in the Fisheries Farm, then, he noticed the broken pieces of glass and also came to know about the fact that in the office, a quarrel had taken place and accused had inflicted the injuries with Daraat and the injured were taken to Shimla, for treatment. Police had collected the broken pieces of glass from the spot and other physical evidence, was also taken into possession. In cross-examination, he has feigned his ignorance about the quarrel, however, according to him, in the morning, Chain Singh had disclosed to him about the quarrel. Chain Singh was also working under Tara Chand. 19. Police had collected the broken pieces of glass from the spot and other physical evidence, was also taken into possession. In cross-examination, he has feigned his ignorance about the quarrel, however, according to him, in the morning, Chain Singh had disclosed to him about the quarrel. Chain Singh was also working under Tara Chand. 19. PW-6, Bhagat Chand, has deposed that at about 11:00 PM, some person came to him and requested him to take a patient to Sandhasu hospital, as, he was having a Bolero Camper, Vehicle No.HP63-0390. This witness has also been declared hostile, at the request of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and despite efforts made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing material has been elicited from him. 20. PW-7, Mukand Lal has deposed that he was associated, in the investigation of the case. On 21.01.2005, accused-Amrit Singh, produced the Daraat, Ex.P3, before the police, which was taken into possession. This witness has admitted that he was working in the same Police Station. Daraat Ex.P3, is easily available in the household. 21. PW-8, Dalip Singh, has proved the memo Ex.PW2/A by virtue of which, the blood stained clothes of Chain Singh Ex. P1 and Ex.P2, were taken into possession. According to this witness, at the relevant time, he was working with Fisheries Department at Sandhasu. 22. PW-9, Dr. Vikas Fotedar, who was posted as Block Medical Officer, CHC Chairgaon, at the relevant time, deposed that on 03.01.2005, he examined Tara Chand, who was brought with alleged history of attack by sharp edged weapon. He noticed following injuries on the person of Tara Chand:- (1) Cut lacerated wound left middle finger. No movement of the injured finger. Finger is chopped off. He also noticed active bleeding and advised X-ray. (2) Injury left ring finger and muscle layer was found to be peeled off. Active bleeding injury was found. (3) Injury right thumb size ½ X ½ inches. Edges are complete cut. No active bleeding present. (4) Injury right middle finger dorsal with clean cut size ½ X ¼ inches. (5) Injury left knee joint ½ inches. 23. He declared injuries No. 3, 4 and 5 as simple and deferred the opinion regarding injury No. 1, till the receipt of expert opinion. After receiving the expert opinion, he declared injury No. 1 as grievous and rest of the injuries were found to be simple. (5) Injury left knee joint ½ inches. 23. He declared injuries No. 3, 4 and 5 as simple and deferred the opinion regarding injury No. 1, till the receipt of expert opinion. After receiving the expert opinion, he declared injury No. 1 as grievous and rest of the injuries were found to be simple. He has specifically deposed that the injuries are not fatal. 24. On the same day, he has also examined Chain Singh. He noticed swelling over left side of forehead. However, no bleeding was found. He has also examined Bhawani Singh and noticed two injuries, which were declared by him as simple. 25. Lastly, he has deposed that the injuries as mentioned in the MLCs Ext. PW9/A and Ext. PW9/C, could be caused by Daraat. 26. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the history mentioned in Ext. PW9/A, Ext. PW9/B and Ext. PW9/C, was based on police docket. Beside the docket, the history was given by the person examined. He has admitted that injury mentioned in Ext. PW9/A, is possible with sharp broken glasses. He further admitted that injury mentioned in Ext. PW9/C, is also possible by broken sharp glasses. However, he has ruled out the possibility of the injury being caused being self inflicted. 27. PW-10, Bhawani Singh, deposed that in the year 2005, work to raise boundary wall of the Fisheries Department was awarded to him. On 02.01.2005, in order to supervise the said work, he has gone there. Then, he noticed a scuffle there. The person from the Fisheries Department were quarrelling. Meanwhile, accused came there to bring back Bhawani Singh, as he has not gone to his home for last two-three days. He exonerated accused Amrit Singh by deposing that accused had not quarrelled with anyone. 28. Since, this witness has resiled, from his statement, given to the police, as such, he has been declared hostile by learned trial Court, at the request of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine him. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that accused Amrit Singh is his real brother, but stated that they are residing separately. He has also admitted that he is having some domestic dispute with accused. The dispute between them is with regard to their land. This witness has admitted that he has also been medico legally examined at CHC Sandhasu. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that accused Amrit Singh is his real brother, but stated that they are residing separately. He has also admitted that he is having some domestic dispute with accused. The dispute between them is with regard to their land. This witness has admitted that he has also been medico legally examined at CHC Sandhasu. He has denied all the suggestions, which were put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. He has explained the injuries found on his person by stating that the injuries were caused to him when he was preventing the persons from quarrelling. Also stated that he had sustained injuries while saving Tara Chand. 29. In the cross-examination by the learned defence Counsel, this witness has stated that when he reached the spot, two-three persons were quarrelling and they were under the influence of liquor. According to him, the incident had taken place at 8:00 – 9:00 pm. 30. PW-11, C. Rameshwar Singh, proved rapat No. 19, dated 03.01.2005, Ext. PW11/A. 31. PW-12, Dhani Ram, was posted as Regional Assistant in the Fisheries Department at Dhamwari. On 02.01.2005, he along with Chain Singh, Tara Chand were sitting in office-cum-residence at Dhamwari. Bhawani Singh Contractor, Chaman Lal Pradhan also came there, as Contractor Bhawani Singh was executing the construction work. At about 8:00 pm, accused Amrit Singh came there. He was talking with contractor Bhawani Singh. Contractor requested him to leave the said spot. Thereafter, Amrit Singh left the premises of Fisheries Farm, but, again came back at 10:00 pm. As soon as, Amrit Singh along with one other person, knocked the door, Chain Singh opened the same. Meanwhile, the person, who came along with accused Amrit Singh, allegedly inflicted a danda blow on Chain Singh, upon which, Chain Singh ran towards the room and fell on the bed. Meanwhile, contractor came out. He has tried to stop his brother. But Amrit Singh has not paid any heed to his request and he has caused damage to the articles lying in the office and also broke the window panes. Meanwhile, contractor had gone to Police Station. 32. As per the further deposition, as soon as accused Amrit Singh broke the window pane, he noticed Tara Chand in the entrance of the room, then he inflicted daraat blow on Tara Chand. Consequently, the said blow landed on Tara Chand and his two fingers chopped off. Meanwhile, contractor had gone to Police Station. 32. As per the further deposition, as soon as accused Amrit Singh broke the window pane, he noticed Tara Chand in the entrance of the room, then he inflicted daraat blow on Tara Chand. Consequently, the said blow landed on Tara Chand and his two fingers chopped off. He became unconscious and fell down. The learned defence Counsel has confronted this witness with the improvement made by him with the earlier statement made to the police. He has further deposed that portion C to C of his statement is incorrect and whatsoever he has deposed in the Court is correct. 33. PW-13, Babu Lal, deposed that accused Amrit Singh produced a daraat, which was taken into possession, vide memo Ext. PW7/A. He has duly identified the daraat Ext. P-3. 34. PW-14, HC Rukam Chand, has deposed that he was posted as I.O. in Police Post Chirgaon. On 03.01.2005, at about 12:15 midnight, Bhawani Singh telephonically informed him about the fact that in the Fisheries Farm at Dhamwari, a quarrel had taken place between the employees and Amrit Singh, upon which, he and C. Ramesh Chand reached on the spot. Tara Chand was found there, who made the statement Ext. PW1/A, upon which, FIR Ext. PW14/A, was registered. In addition to this, he has also deposed about the investigation, which he had conducted. 35. PW-15, SHO Raj Kumar, prepared the challan. 36. PW-16, SI Amar Chand, recorded the FIR, on the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 37. PW-17, ASI Tej Ram, deposed that on 21.01.2005, accused Amrit Singh produced a daraat Ext. P- 3, which was taken into possession, vide memo Ext. PW7/C. 38. PW17, HC Ramesh Chand, was associated in the investigation, on 13.01.2005. He was medico legally examined. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that accused Amrit Singh has allegedly disclosed to him that he had sustained injuries at Dhamwari. 39. PW-18, Inspector Rustam Ali, was posted as In- charge, Police Post Chirgaon. On 04.01.2005, HC Rukam Chand, handed over the investigation to him, upon which he conducted further investigation, in this case. 40. PW-19, Dr. Sandeep Vaidya, issued the medical certificate of Tara Chand. According to him, the patient was having compound fracture on middle finger. 41. This is the entire evidence. 42. The petitioner is before this Court by way of criminal revision. 40. PW-19, Dr. Sandeep Vaidya, issued the medical certificate of Tara Chand. According to him, the patient was having compound fracture on middle finger. 41. This is the entire evidence. 42. The petitioner is before this Court by way of criminal revision. This Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate the evidence, until or unless the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, have been held to be perverse. 43. The term “perverse” has duly been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Arulvelu and Another Versus State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another’ , reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 206. Relevant paragraphs 22 to 30 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:- “22. We have carefully perused the judgment of the trial court and the impugned judgment of the High Court. The trial court very minutely examined the entire evidence and all documents and exhibits on record. The trial court's analysis of evidence also seems to be correct. The trial court has not deviated from the normal norms or methods of evaluation of the evidence. By no stretch of imagination, we can hold that the judgment of the trial court is based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it and consequently the judgment of the trial court is perverse. 23. We also fail to arrive at the conclusion that the discussion and appreciation of the evidence of the trial court is so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse and the findings rendered by the trial court are against the weight of evidence. The law is well settled that, in an appeal against acquittal, unless the judgment of the trial court is perverse, the Appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse the judgment of acquittal. 24. The expression `perverse' has been dealt with in number of cases. In Gaya Din (Dead) through LRs. & Others v. Hanuman Prasad (Dead) through LRs. & Others, this Court observed that the expression `perverse' means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Gaya Din (Dead) through LRs. & Others v. Hanuman Prasad (Dead) through LRs. & Others, this Court observed that the expression `perverse' means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta ) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. & Others, the Court observed that `perverse finding' means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M. S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma & Another, the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough, the Court observed that a perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey, the Court defined `perverse' as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct etc. 27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition Perverse: Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable. 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English – International Edition Perverse: Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English - 1998 Edition Perverse: Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition) Perverse: Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, Fourth Edition Perverse: A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. 28. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, Fourth Edition Perverse: A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. 28. In Shailendra Pratap & Another v. State of U.P., the Court observed thus: "8. … We are of the opinion that the trial court was quite justified in acquitting the appellants of the charges as the view taken by it was reasonable one and the order of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse. It is well settled that appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal unless the same is found to be perverse. In the present case, the High Court has committed an error in interfering with the order of acquittal of the appellants recorded by the trial court as the same did not suffer from the vice of perversity." 29. In Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police & Others, the Court while dealing with the scope of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution observed as under: "9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with." 30. The meaning of `perverse' has been examined in H. B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Karnal & Others v. Gopi Nath & Sons & Others 1992, this Court observed as under: "7. In the present case, the stage at and the points on which the challenge to the assessment in judicial review was raised and entertained was not appropriate. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in constituting itself into a court of appeal against the assessment. In the present case, the stage at and the points on which the challenge to the assessment in judicial review was raised and entertained was not appropriate. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in constituting itself into a court of appeal against the assessment. While it was open to the respondent to have raised and for the High Court to have considered whether the denial of relief under the proviso to Section 39(5) was proper or not, it was not open to the High Court re- appreciate the primary or perceptive facts which were otherwise within the domain of the fact-finding authority under the statute. The question whether the transactions were or were not sales exigible to sales tax constituted an exercise in recording secondary or inferential facts based on primary facts found by the statutory authorities. But what was assailed in review was, in substance, the correctness - as distinguished from the legal permissibility - of the primary or perceptive facts themselves. It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law." 44. Similar view has again been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ S.R. Tewari Versus Union of India and Another’ , reported in (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 602. Relevant paragraph 30 of the said judgment is reproduced, as under:- “30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide: Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. Secretary and Babu v. State of Kerala).” 45. In view of the above, now this Court would proceed further to ascertain the fact whether the findings so recorded by the learned trial Court falls within the definition of ‘perverse findings’ or not. 46. As per the complainant, at the time of incident i.e. 02.01.2005, at about 10:00 pm, complainant Tara Chand, along with Bhawani Singh Pradhan Gram Panchayat Tikkari, Up-Pradhan Chaman Lal, Chain Singh and Dhani Ram, Fisheries Regional Assistants, were in the office. As per the version of the complainant, in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the incident had been witnessed by all the above persons. However, complainant Tara Chand, himself has changed his version while appearing in the witness box on 03.04.2006, when, he deposed that on 02.01.2005, at about 10:00 pm, he was present in his office, along with Chain Singh, Fishery Regional Assistant and Field Assistant Dhani Ram, then accused came there and inflicted daraat blow, upon him, whereas, in the statement under Cr.P.C., he has named Bhawani Singh Pradhan, Up-Pradhan Chaman Lal, as the persons, who were also present there. 47. The version of the complainant (PW-1) has been accepted by the prosecution as correct, as no request has been made to the learned trial Court to declare the said witness hostile to the extent that he has omitted the names of Bhawani Singh and Chaman Lal, as the persons, present at the spot and eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Once, the version of the complainant has been accepted by the prosecution as correct, then, the case of the prosecution comes under cloud of suspicion. When a specific stand has been taken by PW-1, in his statement recorded under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., then the material deviation from that stand while appearing in the witness box that too without any explanation is fatal for the prosecution case. It seems that the star witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 are giving the contradictory version. When a specific stand has been taken by PW-1, in his statement recorded under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., then the material deviation from that stand while appearing in the witness box that too without any explanation is fatal for the prosecution case. It seems that the star witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 are giving the contradictory version. PW-2, who was allegedly present at the spot, introduced a new story in the examination-in-chief that two-three other unknown persons were also present in the room, where the alleged incident had taken place. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution to clarify the new case introduced by him. Moreover, presence of two-three other unknown persons as per PW-2, gives credence to the stand of the accused that the quarrel had taken place between the employees. Moreover, PW-2, does not fall within the definition of eye witness, as, in his cross- examination, he has admitted that when, he reached in the room, quarrel had already taken place. Another fact, which has been rightly been highlighted by learned Counsel appearing for the accused that PW-2, has changed the entire prosecution story by stating that another person also came with the accused and said person had given danda blow to Chain Singh. Whereas, the injured PW-1, remained silent about this material aspect of the case. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the genesis of the occurrence has been withheld by the star witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. 48. Interestingly, PW-1, has not uttered even a single sentence about the fact as to why he has named Bhawani Singh and Chaman Lal, as the alleged eye witnesses of the crime in question. In the cross-examination, by learned Counsel appearing for the accused, he has again deposed that Chaman Lal came along with Bhawani Singh. 49. From the cross-examination of this witness, presence of Bhawani Singh and Chaman Lal at the spot has also not been disputed. Both these star witnesses appeared in the witness box as prosecution witnesses, and have been turned hostile and despite the best efforts made by learned APP, nothing material could be elicited, from them. 50. 49. From the cross-examination of this witness, presence of Bhawani Singh and Chaman Lal at the spot has also not been disputed. Both these star witnesses appeared in the witness box as prosecution witnesses, and have been turned hostile and despite the best efforts made by learned APP, nothing material could be elicited, from them. 50. In this case, it has not been explained by the prosecution, as to why the complainant, who at one point of time, named Bhawani Singh and Chaman Lal, as eye witnesses, when appeared in the witness box, has actively concealed the material facts with regard to the presence of two persons, who have been cited as independent witnesses. 51. PW-2, Chain Singh, has given a contradictory stand by deposing that in their office Bhawani Singh, Tara Chand and two-three other persons were present. The evidence of PW-2 Chain Singh and PW-12 Dhani Ram is to be scrutinized with extra care and caution, as both of them were working as subordinate officials of PW-1 Tara Chand. Presence of Bhawani Singh and Chaman Lal, has also been admitted by PW-12, but why the star witness i.e. PW-1, has concealed their names in his examination-in-chief, is a question, which has not been explained and is sufficient to vitiate the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court. 52. The evidence of the prosecution has to be considered in totality, and not in piecemeal. When the initial case of the prosecution was about the presence of five persons i.e. Tara Chand, Chaman Lal, Bhawani Singh, Chain Singh and Dhani Ram, then, the omission of PW-1, to mention about the presence of the two independent witnesses, is fatal for the case of the prosecution, as these two witnesses are the best persons to depose about the genesis of the occurrence, as, in the present case, it seems that accused had taken a defence that a quarrel had taken place between the officials of Fisheries Department and in that scuffle, window pane had broken and the injured had sustained injuries. 53. PW-12, Dhani Ram, has introduced a new version, in his examination-in-chief, when he deposed that when accused Amrit Singh knocked the door, the same was opened by Chain Singh. 53. PW-12, Dhani Ram, has introduced a new version, in his examination-in-chief, when he deposed that when accused Amrit Singh knocked the door, the same was opened by Chain Singh. When the door was opened, one person was along with accused Amrit Singh, who has inflicted a danda blow to Chain Singh, upon which, Chain Singh ran towards the room and fell on the bed. This version is a new version, which has been introduced by this witness and said version is contrary to the stand taken by PW-1, Tara Chand. 54. It is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is duty bound to prove the guilt of the accused by leading cogent evidence. The quality of the evidence matters, not the quantity. When the person, who was allegedly present there, i.e. PW-12, had introduced a new story by deposing that on opening the door, one another person was with accused Amrit Singh, who has inflicted the blow on Chain Singh, and this witness has not been declared hostile, then the version of Chain Singh, PW-2, qua the fact that the accused had inflicted the daraat blow on his head, cannot be accepted as gospel truth. 55. Merely, on the basis of statements of Doctors, who falls within the definition of expert witness, the judgment of conviction does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny, in view of the contradictory stand taken by the complainant (PW-1), PW-3 Chaman Lal and PW-12 Dhani Ram, as above three star witnesses had given a different version of the incident. 56. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “(1974) 3 Supreme Court Cases 397, Harchand Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana ”, this Court is of the view that the judgment of conviction, does not stand in the judicial scrutiny, by this Court. Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12, of the judgment, are reproduced as under:- “11. The function of the court in a criminal trial is to find whether tile person arraigned before it as the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12, of the judgment, are reproduced as under:- “11. The function of the court in a criminal trial is to find whether tile person arraigned before it as the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For this purpose the court scans the material on record to find whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidence upon the basis of which it is possible to found the conviction of the accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. If in a case the prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradict and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the court would be, left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation. 12. Mr. Marwah has cited before us the case of Vadivalu Thevar V. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , wherein it was laid down that the court can base the conviction of the accused on a charge of murder upon the testimony of a single witness if the same was found to be convincing and reliable. There can, in our opinion, be no dispute with the above proposition, but that proposition can be of no avail in the, present case. As already mentioned earlier, the prosecution evidence itself creates doubt about the veracity of the testimony of Ram Asra,upon which testimony reliance is now sought to be placed by Mr. Marwah. Had the testimony of Ram Asra been of a convincing character and the prosecution evidence had not itself created doubt regarding the correctness of his testimony, this Court might have sustained the conviction of appellants upon the testimony of Ram Asra. As the things are, prosecution itself has led evidence to show that the testimony of Ram Asra is not reliable. Self emphasis supplied.” 57. As the things are, prosecution itself has led evidence to show that the testimony of Ram Asra is not reliable. Self emphasis supplied.” 57. At the cost of repetition, no efforts have been made by the prosecution to declare the complainant (PW-1) as hostile to the extent of omission on his part to name Bhawani Singh and Chaman Lal, as the persons, who were present there, as eye witnesses, and when other two star witnesses have named the said two persons, to be present on the spot and witness to the crime, then, non consideration of this material aspect would fall within the definition of perverse findings and the same would also cause doubt in the prosecution case. 58. It is the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of each and every reasonable doubt is to be given to the accused. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as passed by learned trial Court, and as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, do not sustain in the judicial scrutiny, by this Court. In view of the above, this Court has no legal hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court falls within the definition of perverse findings and same are required to be interfered. 59. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are set aside, by acquitting the accused from the offences, for which, he has been convicted, in this case. 60. The bail bond and surety bond furnished by the accused are discharged. The fine amount, be refunded back to him, after the expiry of statutory period of limitation, in case no appeal is preferred, and in case an appeal is preferred, the same be dealt with as per orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 61. The accused is directed to furnish the bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, under the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C to the satisfaction of learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of fifteen days, by giving an undertaking to appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case, this judgment is being assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 62. Record be sent back.