JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment of 26.6.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 12-NL/7 of 2007/04 whereby the (for short ‘accused’) stood acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences charged. 2. Facts in brief are that on 22.6.2000 at about 9 a.m. the complainant Joginder Kaur who claims her to be the owner of the land comprised in Khasra No. 64 was cultivating the land by two tractor with the help of her son and some other people. In the meantime, Hardit and Harbhajan came on the spot and started administering beatings to one Ranjeet who was also standing there. Ranjit was hit with axe. Thereafter Joginder Kaur was also beaten up. The matter was reported to the police. FIR was registered. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. Since it stands found that another case FIR No. 80 of 2000 has also arisen out of the same scuffle and being exclusively triable by the Court of sessions had been committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge then assigned this case to the court of learned trial Court. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 323 read with section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, they chose to lead evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused have with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. On the anvil of a testamentary disposition recorded by the deceased testator Darshan Singh in favour of Joginder Kaur, the latter staked entitlement to a contentious tract of 3 biswas of land. Joginder Kaur was the daughter of the deceased testator from one amongst his two wives Swaran Kaur, the other being Milap Kaur. A civil litigation qua the aforesaid contentious tract of 3 biswas of land stood constituted before the Civil Court concerned which as apparent on a perusal of PW-13/B rendered an interim order on 22.12.1999 whereby possession of Joginder Kaur qua the suit land comprising the contentious tract of 3 biswas of land stood protected. The order of the learned trial Court stood affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan in its rendition of 30.5.2000. 10. Uncontrovertedly, Joginder Kaur on the ill-fated day of 22.6.2000 by deploying two tractors one of which was plied by her son Ravinder Singh and other was plied by Jaswant Singh proceeded to hold cultivation of the small tract of 3 biswas of land. Also on the ill-fated day her son Gurmeet Singh was also working in the fields. One Ranjeet Singh was also present thereat. For corroborating the genesis of the occurrence embodied in the FIR comprised in Ex.PA, Joginder Kaur stepped into the witness box as PW-1. Also on the ill-fated day her son Gurmeet Singh was also working in the fields. One Ranjeet Singh was also present thereat. For corroborating the genesis of the occurrence embodied in the FIR comprised in Ex.PA, Joginder Kaur stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She therein testified of on 22.6.2000 at about 9 a.m. when she by deploying two tractors driven by aforesaid, concerted to cultivate her land, accused Hardit arrived thereat with his standing armed with an axe with user whereof he struck a blow on Ranjit, as a result of which blood started oozing from the wounds sustained by him. On her raising outcries her sister-in-law Laxmi Devi, Gurmit, Gagandeep arrived at the spot whereat accused Hardit, Harbhajan Singh, Joginder Singh, Baljeet Singh, Mohan Singh and Rajinder Singh were lifting the injured Ranjeet to the house of accused Harbhajan Singh. On the intervention of her brother Gurmeet both the scuffling parties were separated. She also deposes of hers also standing delivered beatings by the accused, in sequel whereto she suffered injures. Moreover she has in her deposition on oath testified of Gurmeet Singh, Gagandeep, Jeet Singh and Laxmi Devi also receiving injuries on their respective person in the scuffle which erupted inter-se them and the accused. She has also voiced in her deposition of the accused wielding dandas. However, she has in her cross-examination feigned ignorance qua whether in the scuffle Fateh Singh delivered an axe blow on the person of Hardit whereupon the latter sustained injuries on his head. Also she feigns ignorance qua the wife of accused Hardit namely Smt. Kulwant also sustaining fracture on her arm. Moreover, she has feigned ignorance qua whether Gian Kaur, Gurmit Kaur, Inder Singh, Gurvinder Kaur and Harbhan Singh sustaining injuries in the scuffle. However, her feigning ignorance qua the factum aforesaid stands countervailed by the factum of hers conceding in her cross-examination of the accused also lodging an FIR against her and other members of the family qua the same incident wherein attribution of commission of penal misdemeanors by her besides by other members of her family stand embodied. 11. The deposition of PW-1 stands corroborated by her son Gurmit Singh (PW-2). However in his deposition he has made a stark contradiction vis-a-vis the testimony of PW-1 manifested by his deposing therein of accused Harbhajan Singh at the relevant time wielding a sickle. 11. The deposition of PW-1 stands corroborated by her son Gurmit Singh (PW-2). However in his deposition he has made a stark contradiction vis-a-vis the testimony of PW-1 manifested by his deposing therein of accused Harbhajan Singh at the relevant time wielding a sickle. The aforesaid contradiction does percolate the genesis of the prosecution case with a vice of exaggeration, with consequential effect of its veracity standing denuded. 12. PW-4 has also corroborated the deposition of PW- 1. Another injured witness PW-10 Jeet Singh also lends succor to the testification qua the ill-fated occurrence rendered by PW-1 Joginder Kaur. However PW-11 unveils in his deposition of his being a resident of Ludhiana also he therein is unable to render a convincing explanation for his arriving at the site of occurrence. 13. PW-5 Dr. Geeta Gupta has proven Ex.PW-5/A and PW-5/C denoting therein the injuries entailed upon the person of Ranjeet Singh. She in her deposition has not overruled the possibility of the injuries noticed in MLC Ex.PW-5/A being a sequel to Ranjeet Singh standing struck with the blunt side of axe, consequently his deposition lends succor to the ocular version of the eye witnesses qua Ranjeet Singh standing struck from the blunt side of the axe. With the effectuation of recovery of kulhari (axe) by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused Hardit under memo Ex.PD lends succor to the depositions of the ocular witnesses qua his at the relevant time wielding it besides his inflicting a blow from its blunt side on the person of Ranjeet Singh. 14. The MLCs Ex. PW-12/A to PW-12/C proven by PW-12 Ajay Kumar Sethi hold revelations qua the injuries entailed upon the person of Gagandeep, Jeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh, all of whom testify qua theirs suffering injuries in sequel to their standing assaulted with dandas by the accused, whereupon their respective testifications qua their suffering injuries in the manner echoed by them in their respective depositions, hold vigor, significantly when PW-12 deposes of injuries noticed by him in the MLC aforesaid being a sequel of theirs standing struck with the blunt side of weapon, hence corroborating the injured witnesses of theirs standing struck by the accused with dandas as stood at the relevant time wielded by them. The MLC prepared qua PW-1 Joginder Kaur comprised in Ex.PW-5/C holds a display qua the injuries enumerated therein holding concurrence with the ocular account qua the occurrence rendered by Joginder Kaur. 15. Concurrence occurring vis-a-vis the ocular account rendered by the injured eye witnesses with the MLCs aforesaid prepared by Doctor concerned besides the efficacious recovery of axe under memo Ex.PD by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused Hardit Singh would constrain a conclusion qua the prosecution succeeding in proving the factum probandum of the accused committing the offences constituted in the FIR. However, the effect of the aforesaid conclusion starts withering in the face of PW-4, in contradiction to the deposition of other ocular witnesses to the occurrence latter whereof depose of accused Harbhajan Singh wielding a danda at the relevant time with user whereof he struck its blow on the person of the injured, his deposing of Harbhajan wielding a sickle. The effect of the aforesaid contradiction belittles the truth qua the genesis of the prosecution occurrence. Also the genesis of the prosecution occurrence qua the accused wielding dandas with user whereof they struck blows on the person of the victim/injured/eye witnesses thereto suffers enfeeblement on the anchorage of the Investigating officer omitting to effectuate the relevant recoveries at the instance of the accused qua whom an ascription is made by the injured ocular witness qua theirs at the relevant time wielding dandas with user whereof they struck blows on their respective person. Non-effectuation of recovery of dandas by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused contrarily foists a conclusion qua the injured ocular witnesses contriving their user by the accused on their respective person. Consequently, the genesis of the prosecution case stands ingrained with a pervasive vice of falsity whereupon hence no reliance is imputable for sustaining findings of conviction against the accused. 16. Be that as it may, even if a scuffle occurred on the ill-fated day inter-se the accused and the complainant factum whereof stands conceded by PW-1. Also it stands conceded by PW-10 Jeet Singh. 16. Be that as it may, even if a scuffle occurred on the ill-fated day inter-se the accused and the complainant factum whereof stands conceded by PW-1. Also it stands conceded by PW-10 Jeet Singh. Furthermore, with the Investigating Officer deposing of the accused in the scuffle which occurred inter-se the accused and the complainant on the ill-fated day, the accused standing entailed with simple injuries on their person also uncontrovertedly with an FIR qua the ill-fated incident also standing lodged by the accused herein wherein qua the same incident the complainant/injured/victims herein stood subjected to trial before the Court concerned is a paramount fact which gives leverage to an inference of a scuffle inter-se Joginder Kaur and her family members with the accused herein erupting on the relevant day. In the scuffle aforesaid as deposed by PW-13 M.P Ram the accused herein also suffered simple injuries on their respective person. With this Court for reasons afore-stated holding of the prosecution witnesses rendering a contrived version qua the genesis of the prosecution case, factum whereof when construed with the injured eye witness Ranjeet Singh recording his presence at the site of occurrence even when he was not a local resident rather had proceeded thereto from Ludhiana qua which factum of he has been unable to purvey any tenable explanation also with PW-1 deploying two tractors to plough a minimal tract of 3 biswas of land dehors her possession qua it standing protected by renditions of civil Courts of law qua hence hers thereupon concerting to by force plough the contentious tract of 3 biswas of land concert whereof appears to stand repulsed by the accused. Also an inference stands aroused qua hers concerting to take forcible possession of the contentious parcels of three biswas of land for dislodging its possession from the accused herein, obviously with the accused holding its possession they too, to repulse the assay of PW-1 to forcibly take its possession may have thereat opened a frontal assault upon the complainant. Also it appears of hence for thwarting the compulsive endeavor of PW-1 to take possession of the contentious portion of 3 biswas of land, they in the exercise of right of private defence of property may have taken to open an assault upon PW-1 besides upon her family members. 17. Also it appears of hence for thwarting the compulsive endeavor of PW-1 to take possession of the contentious portion of 3 biswas of land, they in the exercise of right of private defence of property may have taken to open an assault upon PW-1 besides upon her family members. 17. No penal culpability can stand fastened to their acts aforesaid spurring from theirs maybe acting in the exercise of the right of private defence of property also when they while exercising the right aforesaid palpably did not exceed it given only one accused Hardit Singh purportedly using only the blunt side of an axe to deliver a blow on the person of Ranjeet Singh. However, when other co-accused for reasons afore-stated did not wield dandas hence they appear to deliver fist blows on the person of the injured ocular witnesses lends impetus to the inference aforesaid of the accused in the exercise of the right of private defence of property not exceeding it. Since the accused in theirs may be opening an assault on PW-1 and her family members did not apparently exceed the exercise by them of the right of private defence of property, reiteratedly no penal in culpability is attractable qua them dehors the factum of Joginder Kaur holding any right to protect her possession, right whereof ensued from orders rendered by Courts of law, especially when for reasons afore-stated it appears of the accused defacto holding possession of the contentious tract of 3 biswas of land, for protection whereof the accused herein may have in the exercise of right of private defence assaulted the injured herein. No evidence is forthcoming of the renditions of the learned civil Courts below also holding a direction to the police agency to restore possession of the contentious tract of 3 biswas of land from the accused to the complainant especially when the accused herein appear to for reasons aforesaid hold its defacto possession. The absence of evidence aforesaid does prima-facie rear an inference of may be PW-1 Joginder Kaur under falsity obtaining judicial renditions qua her possession qua the contentious parcels of 3 biswas holding validation. The absence of evidence aforesaid does prima-facie rear an inference of may be PW-1 Joginder Kaur under falsity obtaining judicial renditions qua her possession qua the contentious parcels of 3 biswas holding validation. The absence of the aforesaid material gives a firm sinew to a conclusion of the accused holding defacto possession of the contentious parcels of three biswas of land, for protection whereof besides for preventing PW-1 from usurping their possession they while acting in the exercise of right of private defence of property they may have opened an assault upon the accused. 18. Dehors the above factum of a scuffle at the relevant date occurring inter-se the accused and the complainant also the factum of the accused herein qua the same occurrence manifested in the extant FIR lodging an FIR against PW-1 and her family members which se-quelled PW-1 and her family members standing subjected to trial besides the factum of the accused herein also in the same incident suffering injuries on their person, is an overwhelming fact which blunts the espousal of the prosecution qua the genesis of the prosecution case embodied in the FIR holding any truth, also concomitantly its vigor stands stifled by the omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in holding conjoint investigations along with the FIR qua the very same occurrence lodged by the accused herein. Omissions aforesaid smother the eruption of the prime factum qua whether the accused herein or PW-1 and her family members initiating the aggression. The smotherings of the aforesaid prime factum cannot hold any leverage for the prosecution to contend of the accused initiating the aggression. Contrarily when the aforesaid prime-factum stood imperatively enjoined to be investigated also potent evidentiary material in display thereof was enjoined to emerge, both the facets aforesaid standing un-concerted to be investigated obviously hence rendering abortive emergence thereof when read in conjunction with the aforesaid embellishments ingraining the prosecution version besides hence falsity ingraining its espousal, concomitantly prod an inference of the relevant benefit of doubt being affordable to the accused herein whereupon they are to be construed to be not the aggressors. Consequently, with the accused herein being un-amenable to a construction of theirs initiating the aggression, the injuries, if any, which the injured ocular witness received are to be held to be suffered by them in sequel to the accused herein may be in the exercise of private defence of property inflicting them on the person of the victim/ocular witnesses hereto also when in theirs may be exercising the right of private defence of property, the accused herein have not exceeded it. 19. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to appreciate the relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court merit any interference. 20. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.