(1.) There is no merit whatever in the criminal revision. Two contentions are urged. The first point framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala has been answered by him in the negative while setting out the findings and, therefore the remaining part of the entire judgment is not warranted as the learned Judge bad given a negative answer to Point No. 1. It is quite evident from reading the judgment that it is only a slip of tongue or hand by which the finding on point No. 1 is shown in negative. In the judgment, when he has framed the point whether the impugned judgment is legal and factually sustainable and it is found after discussing the entire evidence that the judgment is unassailable, the extract of the findings given in paragraph II as against point No. 1 in the negative is certainly a mistake and it cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner herein. It is really surprising that such an argument is advanced at the stage of revision petition before this Court.
(2.) As regards arguments on the merits of the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, several contentions are raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner and are dealt with hereunder,
(3.) The first contention is that all the witnesses of the prosecution are closely related and therefore, interested witnesses and their evidence should not have been accepted, there is no merit in this contention If the evidence is in no manner discrepant and if the evidence can be accented without any further corroboration from a stranger or a third party the court is entitled to accept the same. The Judicial Magistrate (I) Dharamshala, who has seen the witnesses in the witness box as well as the Additional Sessions Judge, after perusing the entire evidence have come to the conclusion that their evidence is acceptable and no infirmity has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner herein in the reasoning so as to reject the same. Hence I do not find any merit in this contention.