JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 8.4.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat in Police Challan No. 185-II/2002, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents (for short “accused”) for the offences charged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.3.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. complainant Hem Chand alongwith his brother Krishan Chand was going to his house from the house of one Sukh Ram at village Gharwasra. On the way both the accused met to the complainant. Accused Bakshi alias Inder Singh gave blow of chain on the nose of the complainant due to which complainant suffered injuries on his eyes. Accused Sant caught hold of the complainant from his neck. The complainant was rescued from the clutches of the accused by Krishan Chand and Ananat Ram. Report to this effect was made to the police on the next date by the complainant and 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. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court qua theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 read with 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 8 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 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. The prosecution case would succeed only when the prosecution witnesses depose a version qua the genesis of the prosecution case bereft of any taint qua theirs rendering a version qua it holding underscorings qua each of them while testifying in Court not either improving or embellishing upon their previous statements recorded in writing nor theirs while standing subjected to cross-examination theirs contradicting their respective testifications occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief besides when the testifications of the prosecution witnesses underscore qua theirs rendering a version qua the prosecution case with utmost consistency besides intra-se harmony. Contrarily when the testifications of the prosecutions witnesses unveil qua theirs therein not rendering a version qua the genesis of the prosecution case with intra-se corroboration thereupon the prosecution would not succeed in proving the relevant charges qua the accused/respondents. 10. In testing whether the prosecution witnesses testify qua the genesis of the prosecution version bereft of any taints afore-stated, an allusion to the testimony of PW-1 is imperative. In his testification PW-1 apparently has embellished besides improved upon his previous statement recorded in writing comprised in the factum of his communicating therein qua one Sukh Ram also accompanying the accused at the relevant time whereupon his testification visibly acquires a taint of his improving and embellishing upon his previous statement recorded in writing rendering hence thereupon the genesis of the prosecution case is construable to be incredible. However PW-1 has testified qua accused Bakshi Ram delivering a blow of chain upon him in sequel whereto he suffered injuries on his nose and eyes. However PW-1 has testified qua accused Bakshi Ram delivering a blow of chain upon him in sequel whereto he suffered injuries on his nose and eyes. The communication aforesaid echoed by PW-1 in his testification occurring in his examination-in-chief though is neither improved nor embellished vis-à-vis his previous statement recorded in writing given the aforesaid factum also standing embodied in the apposite FIR yet thereupon it would not be apt to conclude qua his rendering a truthful version qua the aforesaid facet significantly when in the apposite MLC comprised in Ex.PW-6/A there is no reflection therein qua the complainant begetting injuries on his eyes in sequel to his purportedly standing delivered a blow of chain thereon by accused Bakshi Ram. In sequel thereto his testification qua the aforesaid facet holds no probative sinew also the testification of the complainant qua accused Bakshi Ram delivering a blow of chain on his person though is neither an improvement nor an embellishment vis-à-vis his previous statement recorded in writing conspicuously when the factum aforesaid stands also narrated in the apposite FIR yet with the Investigating Officer not effectuating recovery of chain renders the ascription by the complainant qua accused Bakshi Ram delivering its blow on his eyes and nose to not hold any creditworthiness. 11. Moreover PW-1 testifies qua his at the relevant site standing rescued by one Sh. Ananat Ram from the belaborings perpetrated on his person by the accused yet the said Ananat Ram neither stood cited as a witness nor stands examined whereas this witness was an un-interested witness also thereupon when he would lend an unbiased besides un-interested version qua the prosecution version. In sequel his non-examination is fatal to the success of the prosecution case. Also his non-examination by the prosecution is fatal to the emergence of truth qua the genesis of the prosecution case. 12. In sequel his non-examination is fatal to the success of the prosecution case. Also his non-examination by the prosecution is fatal to the emergence of truth qua the genesis of the prosecution case. 12. Be that as it may the prosecution examined PW-3 the brother of the complainant for meteing corroboration to the testification of the complainant which for the reasons afore-stated is ridden with stark taints of embellishments besides improvements also it is un-creditworthy on account of dichotomy occurring intra-se his testimony vis-à-vis the apposite MLC also for non-effectuation of recovery of chain by the investigating officer concerned, chain whereof stood allegedly used by accused Bakshi Ram for delivering blows on his nose and eyes, yet the effect of the taints afore-stated gripping the testification of PW-1 may stand belittled if PW-3 brother of PW-1 stands concluded by this court to be an eye witness qua the occurrence. For determining the aforesaid factum, it is imperative to gauge from his testimony whether he was present at the relevant site of occurrence at the stage contemporaneous to its taking place thereat. In gauging the aforesaid factum this Court stands enjoined to on an incisive reading of his testification discern therefrom qua his rendering a version in conformity with the one rendered by PW-1. However when PW-3 testifies qua accused Sant Ram belaboring PW1 with kick and fist blows factum whereof remaining un-corroborated by PW-1 in his testification renders the testification of PW-3 to be in stark contradiction vis-à-vis the testification of PW-1 whereupon it cannot be concluded of his meteing corroborative vigor to the testimony of PW-1 wherefrom it is to be concluded of his being a concocted witness to the occurrence rendering his testimony to be incredible. 13. Furthermore the factum of PW-3 omitting to testify in his examination-in-chief qua the presence of Ananat Ram at the relevant site of occurrence whereas PW-1 testifies qua the presence of Ananat Ram at the relevant site of occurrence at the relevant time also begets an inference of PW-3 deposing contradictory qua the aforesaid factum vis-à-vis PW-1 whereupon it has also to be concluded with accentuated vigor qua his being an engineered witness to the occurrence whereupon no credence is imputable to his testification. 14. 14. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended with vigor qua with PW-1 a witness to recovery memo Ex.PW-1/A whereunder blood stained clothes of PW-1 were taken into possession admitting the factum of occurrence of his signatures on Ex.PW-1/A purveys sound and tangible proof qua the prosecution lending cogent proof qua effectuation of blood stained clothes of the complainant occurring thereunder yet the vigor of his submission wanes, for absence on the part of the prosecution to send the blood stained clothes of the complainant recovered under memo Ex.PW-1/A to the FSL concerned for eliciting therefrom an apposite opinion qua it holding the blood of the complainant. Contrarily the aforesaid omission rears an inference qua the blood occurring on the clothes recovered under memo Ex.PW-1/A not belonging to the accused wherefrom it is to be concluded qua their recovery not connecting the accused in the commission of the alleged offence. 15. 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. 16. 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.