JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 25.4.2007 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (I), Dharamshala in Crl. Case No. 9-II/2006, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents (for short “accused”) for the offences charged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the morning of 17.12.2005 complainant Nirmala Devi had gone to drop her daughter Renu, who was studying in B.A in College. At about 5.25 a.m. when the complainant had been returning to her house after her daughter had boarded the bus for Dharamshala, accused persons without any reason attacked her. When she raised cries, her daughters Sonu and Sanju came to the spot for rescuing her from the clutches of the accused. Both the accused also gave beatings to both of the daughters of the complainant. As a result of beatings having been given by the accused to the complainant and to her daughters, they sustained injuries on their person. The complainant reported the matter to police on which FIR came to be registered. All the injured were medically examined. 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. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court qua theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 9 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 did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal qua 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 sequelled 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. 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 vice counsel appearing for the respondents/accused has 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. In an incident which allegedly occurred on 17.12.2005, the injured/victims as portrayed by their respective MLCs comprised in Ex.PW-6/B to PW-6/D attained as pronounced therein injuries on their respective persons. On anvil of the aforesaid personifications occurring in the afore-referred exhibits, the learned Deputy Advocate General contends of the prosecution succeeding in connecting the accused/respondents in the alleged occurrence qua which an FIR Ex.PW-8/A stood lodged with the police station concerned. He also proceeds to contend qua the recovery of Dandas Ex.P-1 and P-2 under recovery memo Ex.PW-2/A befittingly connecting the accused in the commission of the offences alleged. Consequently, he contends of the findings of the acquittal recorded by the Magistrate concerned qua the accused/respondents warranting interference by this Court. However the mere occurrence of personification in the apposite MLCs comprised in Ex.PW-6/B to PW-6/D qua the injured/victims sustaining injuries in the alleged assault which stood perpetrated on their person by the accused would not ipso facto render truthful the ocular account purveyed thereto by the injured witnesses, significantly when the FIR qua the occurrence as manifested by the endorsement made thereon by the Magistrate concerned unravels qua its standing received by him on 31.1.2006 whereupon an inference stands begotten of its standing belatedly lodged by the injured/victims. Also since it was enjoined upon the Investigating Officer to, on the apposite FIR qua the occurrence standing lodged transmit it with utmost promptitude to the Magistrate concerned whereupon an inference would stand garnered of it containing truthful recitals qua an incident whereto a prompt information stood purveyed by the injured/complainant, contrarily with the Investigating Officer concerned though standing enjoined, to, on the apposite FIR standing lodged before the police station concerned, transmit it with utmost promptitude to the Magistrate concerned. Evidently when he has omitted to do so also when no vivid display occurs of the Magistrate concerned while making the apposite endorsement his making any pronouncement qua the Investigating Officer concerned despite the FIR standing lodged in quick sequel to the occurrence his derelicting with utmost promptitude in dispatching it to the Illaka Magistrate, concomitantly hence begets an inference of the incident of 17.12.2005 standing reported not on the date aforesaid by the injured/complainant rather information qua it standing purveyed by the injured/complainant in proximity to the Illaqa Magistrate receiving the apposite FIR comprised in Ex.PW-8/A on 31.1.2006 whereupon an inference stands galvanized of the injured/complainant belatedly lodging before the police station concerned an apposite FIR qua the occurrence also it begets a sequel of the narrations qua the incident embodied therewithin being concocted besides premeditated especially when the inference aforesaid would stand negated by its prompt lodging whereas it for the reasons aforesaid stands impromptly lodged, does enhance a derivative of the injured/complainant while belatedly lodging it, hers introducing therewithin a premeditated and concocted version qua the occurrence, whereupon no credibility is fastenable. 10. The effect of the aforesaid conclusion formed by this Court of the version qua the occurrence embodied in FIR Ex. PW-8/A standing ridden with a taint of concoction besides premeditation, negates the effect of the MLCs aforesaid also benumbs the efficacy of the recovery of Dandas under memo Ex.PW-2/A conspicuously given their recovery standing effectuated on a month elapsing since the occurrence. The further erosion qua efficacy of recovery of dandas under memo Ex.PW-2/A is gathered from the factum of the complainant in the apposite FIR comprised in Ex.PW-8/A omitting to narrate therein the trite factum of the accused wielding dandas at the time contemporaneous to theirs perpetrating an assault upon the person of injured/victims. 11. Moreover with PW-2 (C. Surjeet Singh) a witness to recovery of dandas testifying qua theirs standing produced in the police station concerned whereat the injured persons were also present, testification whereof of PW-2 contradicts the revelations occurring in Ex.PW-2/A qua recovery of dandas standing effectuated by the Investigating Officer on 12.1.2006. 11. Moreover with PW-2 (C. Surjeet Singh) a witness to recovery of dandas testifying qua theirs standing produced in the police station concerned whereat the injured persons were also present, testification whereof of PW-2 contradicts the revelations occurring in Ex.PW-2/A qua recovery of dandas standing effectuated by the Investigating Officer on 12.1.2006. The aforesaid contradiction acquires aggravation from the factum of the other witnesses to recovery memo one Budhi Singh standing un-examined by the prosecution whereas he was an independent witness to recovery memo contrarily when PW-2 is an official working under the Investigating Officer who too has not supported the narration qua the recovery of danda occurring in Ex.PW-2/A is a vivid pronouncement of the recitals occurring in Ex.PW-2/A holding no efficacy also thereupon an inference is erected of the prosecution not connecting their user by the accused. 12. Be that as it may further inroads qua the veracity of the prosecution version embodied in Ex.PW-8/A upsurges from the factum of a purported independent witness to the occurrence, one Subhash Chand (PW-5), a close relative of the injured/complainant not supporting the prosecution case. His omission to lend support to the prosecution case despite his enjoying proximity in relation with the injured/complainant does disprove the version qua the occurrence testified by the injured/complainant. Also an aura of incredibility surrounds the version qua the occurrence testified by the injured/complainant given the communication made by her in her cross-examination of the Investigating Officer not making an inquiry from her qua the incident nor the Investigating Officer recording her version qua the occurrence, contrarily she testifies of the Investigating Officer recording the statement of her daughter. All the aforesaid communications are in blatant contradiction vis-à-vis the trite factum of the apposite FIR holding recitals therein of the injured/complainant purveying a narrative qua the occurrence to the Investigating Officer. The aforesaid contradiction inter-se the afore-referred communications occurring in her cross-examination significantly vis-à-vis the trite factum of Ex.PW-8/A holding a disclosure qua its standing lodged by her disables her to truthfully testify qua the genesis of the prosecution case as stands manifested in Ex.PW-8/A. Consequently her testification qua the occurrence as an informant cannot be fastened any virtue of credibility significantly when in her cross-examination she disowns the narratives qua the occurrence held therewithin. 13. 13. A wholesome analysis of 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 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 interference. 14. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.