JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal rendered on 30.4.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4), Shimla upon criminal case No. 31/2 of 2006/2000. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 16.12.1998 Vikas Bali, complainant got his statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Ext. PW1/A recorded with Sh. Prakash Chand at IGMC Shimla that on 16.12.1998 at 5:30 P.M. he along with his friends Ankush, Kuljeet and Maasi Alpana was taking tea in Selitiyer Hotel. When he came out for toilet, one boy met him outside the room, who disclosed his name as Udit. That boy asked him not to do what he was doing in R.C.C. When the complainant Vikas Bali asked what he was doing, that boy gave two fist blows. The waiters and his companions also came there and rescued him from the clutches of said Udit. That boy also threatened the complainant to kill him and ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he along with his companions went to his house. At 9 P.M., when he along with his family members was present at his house, another boy named Rajesh came there and knocked at the door of his house. His sister opened the door. Rajesh inquired whether the house was belonging to J.N. Bali. In the meantime, their neighbour Saraswati came there and disclosed that the said boy was asking for the house of Bali and his other companions were standing outside. In the meanwhile, 3-4 boys along with Udit came inside and one of them was having rod, who was asked by Udit to kill him. He was attacked with the rod and thereafter all the accused started beating him with fist blows and with the rod. When his father tried to rescue him from the clutches of the accused, they also gave beatings to his father. When he along with his father came outside after rescuing them selves, those boys also came outside and 4-5 other boys joined them. All the accused persons again started beating them. On hearing their noise, their neighbours Kushal Kumar and Mukesh Kumar etc. came on the spot and rescued them. Udit was caught by him whereas Rajesh was apprehended by the other persons on the spot. All the accused persons again started beating them. On hearing their noise, their neighbours Kushal Kumar and Mukesh Kumar etc. came on the spot and rescued them. Udit was caught by him whereas Rajesh was apprehended by the other persons on the spot. The statement after endorsement was sent to Police Station through Daljit Singh on the basis of which formal FIR Ext. PW5/B was registered. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused persons, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court, for their committing offences punishable under Sections 451, 147, 148, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statements of each of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein each of the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of evidence existing on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal upon the accused/respondents herein, for their committing offences punishable under Sections 451, 147, 148, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded upon the accused/respondents. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation “by it” of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross-mis-appreciation “by it” of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents herein has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shimla standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents herein has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shimla standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any 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 proof of the charges, the prosecution has depended upon the testimonys of the injured/victims, who respectively testified as PW-1 and PW-2. Their testificatory ascriptions of incriminatory roles vis-à-vis co-accused Rajesh and Udit, hold consonance with all recitals in respect thereto occurring in FIR borne in Ext.PW5/B. Consequently, with theirs’ concurrently testifying visa- vis the incriminatory roles of the aforesaid accused, also thereupon renders their respective testifications) to remain un-ingrained with any vice of any improvement or embellishment, vis-à-vis their respectively recorded previous statements in writing. Also with PW-8 proving the apposite MLCs prepared in respect of the injuries suffered by PW-1 and PW-2, in the ill-fated occurrence, MLCs whereof are embodied respectively in Ext.PW8/A and Ext.PW8/B, besides with PW-8 testifying with categoricality in respect of the injuries reflected therein being causable by user thereon, of dandas and of iron rods, whereupon with his purveying corroboration vis-à-vis the testifications of victims, who respectively deposed as PW-1 and PW-2, thereupon it would be befitting to conclude that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the accused. 10. However, both the danda and the iron rod with user where of, injuries were respectively inflicted by Udit and Rajesh, upon PW-1 and PW-2, remained un-recovered, at their respective instances by the Investigating Officer concerned. The effect of the Investigating Officer concerned failing to, at the instance of the aforesaid, beget rercoverys of dandas and of iron rods, weapons whereof stood purportedly used by the co-accused in inflicting injuries upon the victims, fosters an inference that their purported user by co-accused being vulnerable to grave skeptism, thereupon it is befitting to conclude that the injuries marked in Ext.PW8/A and in Ext. PW8/B, hence befell upon PW-1 and upon PW-2, in a manner other than the one, as concurrently deposed by them. PW8/B, hence befell upon PW-1 and upon PW-2, in a manner other than the one, as concurrently deposed by them. The ensuing inference there from is of the testifications of PW-1 and PW-2 in respect of theirs, in the relevant occurrence hence suffering injuries on their respective persons, in sequel to co-accused Udit and Rajesh delivering blows upon them, with theirs’ purportedly using iron rods and dandas, standing bereft of sanctity. 11. The testifications of PW-1 and PW-2 were concerted to be corroborated by PW-3, PW-6 and PW- 7. However, the testimony of PW-3 vis-à-vis the occurrence is discardable his being evidently a hearsay witness. PW-6 and PW-7 both reneged from their respectively previously recorded statements in writing, also in their respectively conducted cross-examinations by the Public Prosecutor concerned, on, theirs being declared hostile, both therein omitted to make any communications in respect of theirs supporting the genesis of the occurrence, also omitted to make any articulations in respect of theirs supporting the factum of one Udit and one Rajesh, recording their participation in the ill fated occurrence. Even though, PW-1 and PW-2 in their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, specifically attributed incriminatory roles vis-à-vis co-accused one Udit and one Rajesh, yet, purported eye witnesses to the occurrence who respectively deposed as PW-6 and PW-7, omitted to, therein disclose the names and identitys of coaccused Udit and of Rajesh, hence thereupon for lack of corroboration thereto by independent witnesses, renders the depositions of the victims to be bald hence uncreditworthy. Even though, PW-6 in his deposition, comprised in his examination-in-chief, makes echoing therein, of two boys being nabbed on the spot, where upon the learned Additional Advocate General submits that hence he corroborates the participation of one Udit and of one Rajesh in the illfated occurrence, yet for the aforesaid contention warranting acceptance, it was also incumbent upon the Public Prosecutor concerned, to, in consonance with the further testification of PW-6, of the said two boys on theirs being nabbed at the site of occurrence, thereafter theirs being handed over to S.P. A.N. Sharma and SHO Pathania, hence adduced cogent evidence in respect thereto, comprised in the police Officers’ aforesaid making testifications in concurrence therewith. However, the prosecution has failed to cogently prove the aforesaid factum, given its omitting to lead the aforesaid, into the witness box, whereas the examinations of the above said Police Officers was imperative, for clinching the factum of two boys, if any, nabbed at the site of occurrence being relatable to the identities of one Udit and one Rajesh. In sequel, their non- examination begets an inference that both aforesaid co-accused Udit and Rajesh, who purportedly stood nabbed at the site of occurrence, where after they were purportedly handed over to the Police Officers concerned, were neither nabbed at the site of occurrence nor were handed over to the aforesaid Police Officers, whereupon their implication in the occurrence, is construable to be engendered by a shrewd mechanism deployed by the Investigating Officer concerned. 12. Both the aforesaid co-accused, prior to their identification in Court by PW-1 and by PW-2, though excepting the latter, hence evidently remained, unidentified by other eye witnesses also though the victims in their previously recorded statements in writing described therein, the key characteristics/features of the aforesaid accused, nonetheless the effect of excepting the aforesaid, neither PW-6 nor other independent witnesses to the occurrence, in their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, not, delineating therein the key characteristic features of the accused concerned, is of, the descriptions by the victims in their previously recorded statements in writing of the key characteristic features of the accused concerned, also theirs identifying them in Court, being of no avail to the prosecution in establishing the incriminatory role of the accused concerned, especially, when obviously the necessary corroborative evidence in respect thereto stands not purveyed either by PW-6 or by other independent witnesses nor when the Police Officers concerned, who respectively purportedly took over the custody of the accused concerned, at the site of occurrence, came to be examined as PWs, for lending succor there to. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded here-in above, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart there-from the analysis of the material on record by the learned appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forth with.