In the present case, ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. As per the ocular version, accused had inflicted injuries on the person of injuries Ramavatar and Sunda Ram. As per the medico legal reports of the injured, Ramavatar had suffered six injuries, whereas injured Sunda Ram had suffered four injuries. Injury No.1 on the person of injured Ramavatar was declared dangerous to life, whereas injury No.6 on the person of Ramavatar was declared grievous in nature. Injured Sunda Ram had suffered simple injuries. So far as the version putforth by accused is concerned, that they had been inflicted injuries by the complainant party, the same was not believed by the Investigating Agency. Accused have proved on record their medico legal reports Exhibit-D-7 to Exhibit-D-9. A perusal of the same, reveals that the accused had suffered abrasion and the said injuries were declared simple in nature with blunt weapon. Accused Dharampal and injured Bali Devi had suffered one abrasion each, whereas injured Rajesh Kumar had suffered three abrasions and swelling on his left palm. Doctor, who had medically examined the said injured, was not examined by the accused. Hence, it is probable that the injuries on the person of the accused party could be self suffered to create a counter version. However, the version putforth by the accused was not believed by the Investigating Agency. In these circumstances, the evidence led by the accused in their defence fails to rebut the prosecution evidence. The fact that person who had conducted the X-ray examination of injured Ramavatar has
