and the victims of offence deposed in court in detail regarding the attack perpetrated on them while they along with their children were sitting peacefully in their house. The 1st appellant came there and picked up a quarrel. The submission of the learned counsel that it was PW1 who initiated the altercation and he was the aggressor cannot be accepted in the above circumstances. The version of PW4 in that regard cannot be given any importance, he being a person who contradicted his previous statements and stated in court a different story. He is not a credible witness at all. PW3, on the other hand, stated that when she reached the place of occurrence on hearing the exchange of words, happened to see the incident. She is a natural witness. Hence, I am of the view that there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW3. Both appellants and the injured are his tenants and no reason could be seen for her to favour the injured. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 renders sufficient support to the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2.
