JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)—The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 30.4.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he acquitted the respondents (for short "accused") for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on dated 22.11.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. when the complainant was coming at place Chauntra, the accused persons met him and assaulted him by giving him kick and the fist blows, as a result of which, he fell down and lost his two teeth. The further case of the prosecution is to the effect that the complainant was rescued by one Anil Kumar from the clutches of the accused, who too was assaulted by the accused persons. On the next day, the complainant approached the Police Post Ghatta and narrated the matter to the police upon which a rapat was entered. The complainant was got medically examined and on confirmation of the fact that the grievous injuries were suffered by the complainant, the matter was referred to P.S. Joginder Nagar where, an FIR under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC was lodged against the accused persons. 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. A charge stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 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 11 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. They did not choose to lead any 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 Additional 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 by it of the relevant material on record. 6. The learned Additional 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 by it of the relevant 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 has with considerable force and vigour 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 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. With Ext.PW-5/B prepared by PW-5 marking underscoring therein qua injury No. 2 enunciated therein being grievous besides with both the victims/injured in the ill-fated occurrence deposing with want of any intra se contradictions in their respective examinations in chief vis-a-vis their respective cross-examinations also theirs deposing with intra se harmony, hence constrain the learned Additional Advocate General to make a submission qua the prosecution succeeding in proving its case whereupon he contends qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jogindernagar, warranting reversal. However, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the submission addressed herebefore by the learned Additional Advocate General suffers emasculation (a) PW-5 in his deposition contradicting the victim/complainant qua in sequel to the victim complainant standing belaboured on his face with fist blows delivered thereon by the accused thereupon one tooth of his upper jaw standing both dislodged besides it falling onto the ground, contradiction whereof emanates from PW-5 voicing qua contrarily the relevant tooth in the upper jaw of the victim rather remaining intact thereat though it standing cracked. 10. 10. The contradiction aforesaid as stands brought to the fore by PW-5 comprised in his disclosing in his testimony qua at the time whereat he conducted the medical examination of the relevant portion of the person of the victim/complainant, his analyzing qua the right upper tooth standing broken besides the second incisor holding cracks, whereupon apparently hence when he omits to pronounce with intra se harmony with the complainant/injured qua its standing both disjoined besides its falling onto the ground fillips an inference qua the graphic contradiction aforesaid negating the version propounded by the complainant qua in sequel to the ill-fated incident, his right upper tooth also his second incisor getting loosed besides falling onto the ground, an ensuable apt sequel whereof is qua the genesis of the prosecution case suffering a jolt also recovery, if any, of the purported fallen right upper tooth and of the second incisor under memo Ext.PW-1/C, both losing vigour. An inference qua the aforesaid factum standing contrived under Ext.PW-1/C gets enhanced by the factum of the complainant/injured not collecting the purportedly disjoined right upper incisor immediately on its purportedly falling onto the ground nor his handing it in quick promptitude thereto, to the Investigating Officer concerned rather his delaying its collection from the site of occurrence upto two days since the incident. (b) The incident stood witnessed by Anil Kumar s/o Kushal besides other independent witnesses, none of whom stood examined by the prosecution whereas the version qua the incident testified by them would have purveyed an impartisan/uninterested version thereto also would have dispelled the aura of doubt arising from the aforesaid factum, engulfing the prosecution version. Consequently, the omission of the prosecution to examine the relevant independent witnesses to the illfated occurrence garners an inference qua the prosecution smothering the truth qua the genesis of the prosecution case. (c) Apparently a delay in the lodging of the F.I.R qua the incident has visibly occurred. Consequently, the omission of the prosecution to examine the relevant independent witnesses to the illfated occurrence garners an inference qua the prosecution smothering the truth qua the genesis of the prosecution case. (c) Apparently a delay in the lodging of the F.I.R qua the incident has visibly occurred. The complainant in purported explication of the delay has propounded a false reason qua his not promptly visiting the Police Station concerned for lodging the apposite information thereat despite it standing evidently located in immediate vicinity to the relevant site of incident, falsity whereof stands embodied in the factum qua his feeling unwell whereas in his cross-examination he narrates qua on the day of the incident his visiting the police station as well as the hospital whereupon his omission to report the incident to the police on the day when he visited the police Station concerned when stands construed in conjunction with the factum of his ascribing a false reason for the delay, galvanizes a deduction qua the story propounded by the complainant holding no scintilla of truth. 11. For the reasons which stand recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record whereupon its judgment warrants no interference. 12. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.