JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 28.3.2009 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala in sessions Case No. 25-K/2002 H.P., whereby he convicted the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) for his committing an offence punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC also sentenced him as follows:- “The accused is convicted and sentenced under Section 307 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) and in default to the payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The accused is further convicted and sentenced under Section 323 IPC for simple imprisonment for 1 years and the fine of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The fine if realized is ordered to be awarded as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C to the injured Gian Singh to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and to the injured Waryam Singh to the extent of Rs.5000/.” 2. Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The fine if realized is ordered to be awarded as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C to the injured Gian Singh to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and to the injured Waryam Singh to the extent of Rs.5000/.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.5.2001 a telephonic information was received in the police station from Medical Officer Sub-Divisional Hospital, Kangra in which it was informed that the injured had been brought to the hospital and after incorporating the entry into the daily diary the police party headed by ASI Sunita Thakur went to the hospital where the statement of Baryam Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. who disclosed that he being resident of village Daka Palera and his elder brother Gian Singh who is being in Military service and on leave had come over to his house and on the same day i.e. 18.5.2001 at about 9 a.m. when he was working in the fields and instructed his elder brother to take the cattle for drinking water as the cattle were grazing over the vacant land and when his brother started collecting cattle for taking drinking water and when reached near the old house where his parental uncle Rasal Singh asked his brother as to why he had come there and started calling bad names as well as challenged him as to why he had come there and when his brother objected to his parental uncle then his parental uncle gave Axe blow to his brother over his forehead and thereby his elder brother fell-down and when he tried to lift his brother then his parental uncle pelted stones which hit him and after raising hue and cry the other people gathered on the spot and he lifted his brother for medical assistance to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Kangra. The police after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C sent the same to the police station for registration of the FIR and thereafter on medical examination of the injured the injuries were found to be grievous with sharp edged weapon. The police after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C sent the same to the police station for registration of the FIR and thereafter on medical examination of the injured the injuries were found to be grievous with sharp edged weapon. During investigation the blood stain towel, Banyan and blood stain soil were taken into possession and the weapon of offence an Axe blood stained was also taken into possession and these were sent to State FSL and the report of the State FSL opined the human blood over these articles. On completion of the investigation the police comes to the conclusion that the accused committed offence under Section 307 and 323 IPC and thereafter put up the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate first Class, Kangra on 4.3.2002 and the case has been committed for sessions trial vide order dated 9.8.2002 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kangra. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing an offence punishable under Section 307 and 323 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He chose to lead evidence in defence and examined one DW. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused for his committing offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC. 6. The learned Sr. counsel appearing for the accused has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction 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 by it of the relevant material on record. Hence he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference rather meriting vindication. 8. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference rather 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. Injured complainant Gian Singh as pronounced by MLC Ext. PW1/A proven by PW-1, suffered on his person, the hereinafter extracted injuries. Injury No. 1 stands testified by PW1 to be grievous in nature. In his testification he has made communications holding echoings qua injury No. 1 being causable with the user of Axe Ex.P1 recovered under Memo Ex. PW-3/C. “Injury cut wound over forehead extending to right parietal region, 4 - ½” x ¾” in size, margins clean cut, underlying skull found fractured, dura and brain tissue visible from wound. Fresh bleeding present. He was advised X-Ray skull, AP and lateral and CT Scan for head and was referred to surgical specialist for opinion and further management. He was seen by Dr. R.K Abrol, Surgeon, whose findings are noted on the MLC. Ex.PW-1/A. He referred the patient to Neuro Surgeon at P.G.I. Chandigarh for further management. As per PGI Chandigarh, out door slip no. C.R. 255495 X-ray skull shows fracture frontal bone and C.T. Scan shows fracture frontal bone with underlying contusions. As per that record he remained admitted at P.G.I from 18.5.2001 to 20.5.2001. As per this opinion, injury No. 1 is grievous in nature. The injury No. 1 is grievous in nature caused by a sharp weapon with alleged duration probable.” 10. Also PW1 in his deposition has made vivid underscorings therein in cogent proof of MLC PW1/B where within reflections stood encapsulated qua the existence on the person of Waryam Singh, the hereinafter extracted injuries. “Contusion on the dorsum of left forearm at the junction of middle and lower 1/3rd over lying abrasion reddish in colour. I issued MLC Ex.PW-1/B which bears my signature. These injuries can be possible with kick and fist blows.” 11. He testifies qua the injuries observed by him to be occurring on the person of waryam Singh standing se-quelled on his standing belaboured by kick and fist blows. I issued MLC Ex.PW-1/B which bears my signature. These injuries can be possible with kick and fist blows.” 11. He testifies qua the injuries observed by him to be occurring on the person of waryam Singh standing se-quelled on his standing belaboured by kick and fist blows. Importantly, he has also disclosed in his testification qua the injuries noticed by him to be existing on the person of Gian Singh, endangering the latter’s life. With PW-1 vividly proclaiming in his testification qua the injuries noticed by him to be occurring on the person of victims aforesaid standing caused at a stage besides at a time contemporaneous to the eruption of the ill-fated occurrence thereupon the learned trial Court had recorded a firm conclusion qua hence the testification of PW1 proving the factum of the injuries as stood sustained by the aforesaid victims in the ill-fated occurrence hence standing also proven to stand sustained by them in the manner pronounced in the apposite FIR. 12. Moreover, both the victims/injured (PWs 5 and 11) testified a version qua the ill-fated occurrence bereft of any taint of any gross inter-se contradictions standing encapsulated in their respective examinations-in-chief vis-a-vis their respective cross-examinations also their respective testifications qua the relevant occurrence are free from any taint of stark embellishments besides improvements upon the version enunciated in the FIR. Consequently with the testimonies of the injured/victims standing bereft of any visible taint of any inter-se or intra-se contradictions nor their respective testimonies making any unearthings qua theirs improving or embellishing vis-a-vis their previous statements recorded qua the occurrence by the Investigating Officer concerned, imperatively constrains this Court to conclude qua their respective testimonies warranting imputation of credence thereon significantly when Gian Singh stood inflicted with injuries in the ill-fated occurrence by purported user of axe Ex.P-1 by the accused on his person besides co-victim Waryam Singh sustained injuries on his standing belaboured by the accused with kick and fist blows. Furthermore with PW-1 as unfolded hereinabove testifying qua the existence of injuries noticed by him to be occurring on the person of the victim Gian Singh standing caused by user thereon of “axe” besides his testifying qua the existence of injuries noticed by him to occur on the person of co-victim /injured Waryam Singh being ascribable to his standing belaboured by fist and kick blows, gives succor to the prosecution case. 13. 13. Be that as it may, despite the testifications of injured/victims for the reasons aforesaid warranting imputation of credence also despite a purported eye witness to the occurrence who testified as PW-4 (Munshi Ram) deposing with intra-se harmony with the injured/ complainant, wherein he ascribes an incriminatory role to the accused, does give leverage to an inference qua the prosecution thereupon invincibly succeeding in proving the charge against the accused. 14. However, the testifications of injured/victims, support whereof stands purveyed by PW- 4, all loose their respective probative sinew, conspicuously with PW-4 being an interested witness, interestedness whereof of PW-4 spurs from in his holding a relationship of father of the victims, whereupon his testimony acquires a taint of active interestedness. Even though the interestedness of a prosecution witness, does not perse render his testification to warrant its ouster yet the testification hereat of a purported independent witnesses, does stand stained with a vice of active interestedness, conclusion whereof gathers galvanization from the factum of his in his cross-examination testifying qua at the stage when he arrived at the site of occurrence 9-10 persons already recording their presence thereat, however with the Investigating officer omitting to cite as prosecution witnesses any of the persons, who apart from PW-4 besides apart from the injured were evidently available at the site of occurrence, persons whereof holding no relation with either the accused or the victim/injured could obviously hence narrate an impartisan version qua the occurrence, whereas the omission of the investigating Officer to either record their statements or to cite them as prosecution witnesses has hence necessarily precluded the emergence of truth qua the occurrence rather has se-quelled eruption of a smothered version qua the occurrence thereupon the testifications of the injured/complainant besides of PW-4 are rendered incredible, theirs hence purveying a colored version qua the incident. 15. The learned trial Court while pronouncing an order of conviction upon the accused had relied upon the purported efficacious recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Axe (Ex. P-1), recovery whereof stood effectuated under recovery memo Ex. PW-3/C. However, a witness to recovery memo (PW-3 Satish Kumar) reneged from his previous statement recorded in writing. 15. The learned trial Court while pronouncing an order of conviction upon the accused had relied upon the purported efficacious recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Axe (Ex. P-1), recovery whereof stood effectuated under recovery memo Ex. PW-3/C. However, a witness to recovery memo (PW-3 Satish Kumar) reneged from his previous statement recorded in writing. Nonetheless the factum of a witness qua the apposite recovery memo reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing would not erode the factum of user of axe Ex.P-1 by the accused on the person of the victim/injured Gian Singh, importantly when the defence acquiesces qua the factum of a scuffle occurring inter-se the victims vis-a-vis the accused, in sequel whereto the apposite injuries stood sustained by them also with PW-3 admitting the existence of his signatures on the apposite recovery memo renders attractable the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, wherein stands encapsulated the trite principle qua his orally digressing from the recorded recitals held in the apposite memo whereon he admits the occurrence of his signatures thereon, hence being inconsequential, corollary whereof is qua thereupon the recitals occurring therein dehors PW-3 orally reneging therefrom standing hence proven. However the mere factum of acquiescence, if any, of the defence qua the factum of a scuffle occurring on the relevant date, at the site of occurrence, would not perse constrain any conclusion from this Court qua thereupon the prosecution also proving the factum qua an efficacious recovery of axe at the instance of the accused by the investigating Officer standing effectuated under an apposite memo nor it would foster any conclusion qua the prosecution proving its user by the accused upon the victim/injured Gian Singh, conspicuously evidently when preceding the purported efficacious recovery of axe Ex.P-1 under an apposite memo no disclosure statement stands recorded by the Investigating Officer concerned. The Investigating Officer concerned stood enjoined with a dire legal necessity to prior to effectuating recovery of weapon of offence, his during the course of holding the accused to custodial interrogation his recording the disclosure statement of the accused, holding unfoldments therein qua the place of its concealment or hiding by him, necessity whereof stands cornered within the domain of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter also therein it stands propounded qua thereupon an admissible besides a relevant custodial confessional statement of accused assuredly making its emergence in sequel whereto the subsequent recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused would hold immense evidentiary clout, contrarily when without preceding thereto, the apposite statutorily warranted custodial confessional disclosure statement of the accused remained unrecorded, thereupon any bald recovery of any weapon of offence by the investigating Officer at the instance of the accused would be hence wholly naked nor would it be construable to be an admissible besides a relevant piece of incriminatory evidence vis-a-vis the accused, significantly when the mandate of law warrants effectuation of the relevant recovery at the instance of the accused not under a composite recovery memo rather warrants recording prior thereto an admissible custodial disclosure statement of the accused. In other words, the recording of a disclosure statement of the accused by the Investigating officer prior effectuating any recovery at the instance of the accused, is preemptory, its embodying the custodial confessional statement of the accused, omission to record whereof renders inconsequential besides inadmissible any recovery under a naked bald recovery memo. “91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents - When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, an in all case in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained…..” 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement - When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms: Proviso (1) - Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, (want of failure) of consideration, or mistake in fact or law; Proviso (2) - The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document: Proviso (3) - The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved: Proviso (4) - The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents: Proviso (5) - Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of contract: Proviso (6) - Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.” “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved-provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proven.” 16. Hereat, tritely with the Investigating Officer concerned prior to his effectuating recovery of weapon of offence not recording the apt custodial admissible disclosure statement of the accused renders the indispensable canon held within the domain of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act qua the accused prior to his facilitating the Investigating Officer to effectuate recovery of the purported weapon of offence, his making an admissible relevant custodial confessional statement remains wholly un-satiated hence rendering recovery, if any, at the instance of the accused, of the purported weapon of offence to hold no probative vigor nor also it can be concluded qua the prosecution thereupon proving qua “axe” with purported user whereof injuries stood sustained by the victim standing used thereon by the accused. 17. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended qua with the defence during the course of PW-4 standing subjected to cross-examination putting an affirmative suggestion to PW-4 Munshi Ram, qua an axe standing handed over to the police by the wife of the accused, whereat the Investigating Officer visited the house of the accused, suggestion whereof evoking an answer in the affirmative from PW-4, qua its thereupon acquiescing qua, for the reasons aforesaid, the inefficacious recovery of axe standing hence rendered inconsequential besides its adversial effect vis-a-vis the prosecution, also hence standing effaced. However the aforesaid submission addressed by the learned defence counsel, founders in the face of (a) axe standing undispatched by the investigating Officer to the FSL whereupon it is befitting to conclude qua the omission aforesaid standing prodded by the factum of its not holding any blood stains. Concomitantly, the “axe” as stood delivered by the wife of the convict Rasal Singh to the Investigating Officer whereat the latter visited the abode of convict accused Rasal Singh, cannot constrain any conclusion qua thereupon the defence acquiescing qua the factum, of the accused/convict conceding to the factum of “axe” standing used by him for delivering, a blow on the head of victim/injured Gian Singh. Contrarily with the defence putting an affirmative suggestion to PW-4 holding echoings therein qua the collection of “axe” standing made by the Investigating Officer from the house of accused Rasal Singh whereto it obtained an affirmative answer thereto from him, yet thereupon the learned PP concerned not proceeding to seek the permission of the learned trial Court, to proceed to cross-examine him qua his deposing a version contrary to the one enunciated in the apposite recovery memo wherein reflections are held qua the accused handing over axe to the Investigating Officer also constrains a conclusion qua the pronouncements occurring in the apposite recovery memo holding no sanctity of truth whereupon the recovery of weapon of offence by the investigating officer concerned is construable to be an invented recovery bereft of holding tandem with the statutory mandate. 18. The accused/convict in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had therein proclaimed qua, his too, while exercising the right of private defence of property besides for thwarting an imminent threat emanating to his person arising from the factum of the victims respectively wielding dandas, hence sustaining injuries in the relevant scuffle, especially when the relevant endangerments on remaining un-concerted to be repulsed, an invasion upon his property by the victim besides imminent danger to his body would stand se-quelled. Even though the aforesaid propagation made by the accused/convict in his defence does hold his acquiescence qua his purportedly striking the head of the victim injured with an axe blow nonetheless the aforesaid acquiescence perse would not render him penally inculpable. 19. The reason for this Court concluding qua the accused succeeding in propagating his exculpatory defence in the relevant scuffle which occurred inter-se him with the victims/ injured, wherein he, too, received a blow on his head, spurs from the factum of the investigating officer concerned merely for benumbing his defence hence, holding an impartisan, skewed besides a slanted investigation. 19. The reason for this Court concluding qua the accused succeeding in propagating his exculpatory defence in the relevant scuffle which occurred inter-se him with the victims/ injured, wherein he, too, received a blow on his head, spurs from the factum of the investigating officer concerned merely for benumbing his defence hence, holding an impartisan, skewed besides a slanted investigation. An inference qua the investigating Officer concerned muting the defence of the accused visibly emerges, from the reasons ascribed hereinafter (a) PW-1 in his testification making underscorings qua his examining the accused/convict in sequel whereto he testifies qua his noticing the injuries occurring on the person of the accused standing se-quelled with user thereon, of dandas; (b) the aforesaid factum pronounced by PW-1 in his testification stands espoused by the learned Deputy Advocate General to, in the absence of the accused/convict lodging an FIR with the Investigating Officer concerned besides with the defence not concerting to belie a disaffirmative answer purveyed by the I.O. qua a suggestion put to him by the defence qua the accused lodging an FIR qua the relevant occurrence thereupon standing hence unrelatable to the ill-fated occurrence. However, the espousal of the Deputy Advocate General suffers emasculation. 20. Preeminently when DW-1 (Rajinder Singh), a witnesses adduced in propagation of the aforesaid defence reared by the accused had emphatically in his examination-in-chief deposed qua on the relevant day injured/victims Waryam Singh besides Gian Singh standing respectively armed with an axe and a danda. He has also proven in his testification comprised in his examination in chief qua his also noticing oozing of blood from the injuries delivered on the head of the accused/convict Rasal Singh by user thereon respectively of axe and danda by the aforesaid. The testification qua the aforesaid factum occurring in the examination-in-chief of DW-1 remained un-concerted by the learned PP concerned to be shred of truth. 21. The factum of the learned PP concerned also while holding DW-1 to cross-examination putting suggestion to him couched in an affirmative phraseology qua his standing cited as a prosecution witness, suggestion evoked an alike affirmative answer from DW-1 also holds visible echoings qua the prosecution thereupon acquiescing qua the factum of DW-1 being an eye witness to the occurrence. However he stood un-examined by the prosecution. However he stood un-examined by the prosecution. Construing the aforesaid non-examination of DW-1 as a PW, in conjunction with the Investigating Officer omitting to join in his investigations other eye witnesses to the occurrence despite their availability thereat, evident availability whereof stood evidently proven by PW-4, constrains a conclusion qua the investigating Officer actively contriving a smothered version qua the occurrence. Even if DW-1 has made underscorings in his deposition contrary to the one held in his previous statement recorded in writing nonetheless when the relevant factum probandum qua Waryam Singh standing armed with an axe and Gian Singh standing armed with a Danda whereby he dispels factum of user of “axe” by the accused on the head of victim Gian Singh, factum whereof stood failingly concerted to be torn of its truth by the learned PP during the course of his holding him to an exacting cross-examination rather in course thereof affirmative suggestions stood purveyed to him holding therein communications qua his eye witnessing the occurrence suggestions whereof evoked from DW-1 an affirmative response also foments an inference qua with the prosecution hence acquiescing qua the underscorings made by DW-1 in his examination-in-chief qua Waryam Singh holding an axe and Gian Singh holding a danda also its thereupon acquiescing qua the underlinings made by DW-1 qua theirs with their respective user delivering blows on the head of the accused in sequel whereof the accused sustaining injuries thereon whereupon the testification of DW-1 warrants imputation of credence. 22. The learned Deputy Advocate General contended qua DW-1 not eye witnessing the occurrence given his testifying qua his at the relevant time breaking stones besides with DW-1 in his cross-examination deposing qua his at the relevant time standing lodged inside a ditch, holding a depth of 5/6 feet wherefrom the learned Deputy Advocate General submits qua hence it being impossible for him to eye witness the occurrence hence rendering his testimony to be incredible. A wholesome reading of the testimony of DW-1 comprised in his examination-in-chief contrarily underscores qua his breaking stones whereafter in sequel to his hearing cries, he arose from his position inside the ditch whereat he noticed qua blood oozing from the head injury sustained by Rasal Singh also he therein underlines qua his noticing blood oozing from the head injury of Gian Singh, underscorings occurring therein rendered uneroded of the tenacity. Consequently the factum of his fragmentarily acquiescing qua a suggestion put to him by the learned PP qua his standing lodged inside a ditch, holding a depth of 5/6 feet, whereupon he stood incapacitated to eye witness the occurrence hence looses its entire tenacity. The eliciting of the aforesaid acquiescence by the PP concerned from DW-1, acquiescence whereof stands engendered by a pointed apposite suggestion standing purveyed to him by the PP concerned, perse would benumb the credibility of the relevant echoings qua the afore-stated factum probandum embodied in his examination-in-chief, whereupon the espousal of the defence stands anchored, conspicuously when the PP concerned also to his apposite suggestions to DW-1 elicited acquiescences from DW-1 qua throughout the ongoing scuffle inter-se the accused vis-a-vis the victim, his remaining inside a ditch, omission whereof nurses a derivative qua DW-1 intermittently remaining inside the ditch whereupon it is befitting to conclude qua at the relevant juncture his standing not lodged inside the ditch rather his standing therein, sequel whereof is qua his relevant testification wherein he ascribes an inculpatory role qua the victims wielding weapons of offence, with user whereof they struck the head of the accused hence holding an aura of truth. Moreso when the unfoldments made by him in his examination-in-chief qua his noticing injuries on the person of the convict and also on the person of the victims, remain un-shattered, during the course of his standing held to an exacting cross-examination, thereupon his testimony embodied in his examination-in-chief stands construable to be holding a truthful ocular account, predominantly with the prosecution conceding qua the Investigating Officer recording his previous statement in writing, acquiescence whereof stems from the PP concerned while holding DW-1 to cross-examination, his eliciting an affirmative answer from him to his apposite suggestion qua the Investigating Officer recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, statement whereof stood reneged by DW-1 nonetheless wherefrom an unflinching conclusion stands nursed qua thereupon his deposition holding a sacrosanct pedestal of truth. 23. 23. Moreover when for the reasons aforesaid DW-1, an eye witness to the occurrence, has vividly disclosed qua the factum of the victims/injured initiating an aggression upon the accused besides with both DW-1 and the Investigating Officer deposing in tandem qua the accused holding possession of the disputed site of occurrence, boosts, in coagulation with the aforesaid discussion, an inference, qua the accused in exercising his right of private defence of property besides for baulking an imminent threat to his body, reared from the victims evidently standing armed with weapons of offence also theirs holding a higher numerical strength vis-a-vis him his thereupon with “any” sharp edged weapon purportedly delivering blows on the head of Gian Singh, delivering whereof by him stands hence proven to fall within the statutory exceptions to criminal liability also significantly when this Court concludes qua the investigating officer concerned contriving the genesis of the case. 24. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of 28.3.2009 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offences charged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records be sent down forthwith.