JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 27.11.2006, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kangra at Dharamshala H.P., in Sessions Case No. 13-G/VII/05/03, S.T. No. 27 of 2005, whereby he convicted the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "accused") for theirs committing an offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 307 and 341/149 of IPC also sentenced them as follows:- "All the accused/convicts are sentenced for offence under Section 307/149 IPC to simple imprisonment for five years each and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. They are further sentenced for offence under Section 323/149 IPC to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. They are further sentenced for offence under Section 341/149 IPC to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. In addition to this, they are further sentenced for offence under Section 147, IPC to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days each. All the sentences shall run concurrent. The fine on its reralisation be disbursed as compensation to the injured Sunil Kumar. The period they remained in police as well as judicial custody, if any, shall be set off against the sentences awarded." 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.2002, one Sunil Kumar accompanied by his cousin Shashi Bhushan was proceeding to Shimla in a bus known as Sharma Bus bearing registration No. HP-36-3905, which was plying from Dehra to Jawalaji via Deherian Muhal. It has been alleged that the bus was boarded by both of them. The bus was full of passangers. When it crossed Muhal the acussed allegedly in furtherance of their common object stopped the bus and after entering inside the bus administered beatings to Sunil Kumar and Shashi Bhushan. Both of whom were dragged out and beatings were administered with cricket bat and wooden sticks used as wickets as well as fist and kick blows. Injured Sunil Kumar fell unconscious. Both of whom were dragged out and beatings were administered with cricket bat and wooden sticks used as wickets as well as fist and kick blows. Injured Sunil Kumar fell unconscious. Thereafter they were taken to Jawalaji hospital and from jawalaji hospital they were referred to SDH, Dehra and from Dehra injured Sunil Kumar was taken to Dharmsala and from Dharmsala he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh where he was operated upon for the injuries suffered by him. The police during interrogation also took into possession the bat and wickets. The medical certificates of both injured were also collected. As per the investigation conducted it was found by the police that case for offence under Sections 147, 149, 323, 307 and 341 IPC was made out. Hence the challan was prepared and presented in the Court. After the challan was put up before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra after supplying of accused copies etc. it was concluded that the case is exclusively triable by the court of sessions. Hence it was committed for trial. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Section 147, 149, 323 and 341 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. One of the accused tendered Mark-P Cash memo and closed the evidence. None of remaining accused led any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 341 of IPC. 6. The learned vice 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 sequelled 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. 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 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. The anvil, for, testing the veracity(s) of the testification(s), rendered by the prosecutions'' witnesses IS (i) of theirs deposing with absolute concurrence with their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, (ii) each deposing in conformity visa-vis the genesis of the prosecution case, as embodied in the apposite FIR, borne in Ext. PW9/B, (iii) their respective testifications'' being bereft, of, any taint, of, theirs making gross embellishment(s) or critical improvement(s) vis-a-vis their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, (iv) in making the aforesaid discernments, an allusion is imperative to the apposite FIR, comprised in Ext. PW9/B, wherein it is echoed, of, the relevant occurrence taking place on 18.2.2002, also therein occur the names of Ramesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Vijay Kumar alongwith with ascriptions'' vis-avis them, of, theirs perpetrating an assault on the persons of both Sunil Kumar and Shashi Bhushan. The aforesaid assault is disclosed in Ext. PW9/A, to occur inside the bus. Also, therein, exist, the names of independent eye witnesses, (a) i.e. the driver and conductor of the bus bearing No. HP-36-3905, AND of one Usha Rani, a passenger occupying the aforesaid bus. The aforesaid assault is disclosed in Ext. PW9/A, to occur inside the bus. Also, therein, exist, the names of independent eye witnesses, (a) i.e. the driver and conductor of the bus bearing No. HP-36-3905, AND of one Usha Rani, a passenger occupying the aforesaid bus. However, both the injured witnesses PW-3 and PW-11, render testifications, in gross digression(s) therefrom (b) in as much as in their testifications'' they contrarily echo of the relevant occurrence, occurring outside the bus, (c) moreover, the independent eye witnesses'' to the occurrence, namely, one Usha Rani AND the driver of the bus, both in their respective testifications omit to lend support to the prosecution case, (d) rather despite the aforesaid prosecution witnesses'' being declared hostile and theirs being subjected to cross-examination, by the APP concerned, yet theirs omitting to make any echoings therein, for hence succoring the charge, thereupon a conclusion is begotten (e) of their respective testifications'' occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief, wherein they omit to lend support to the prosecution case, being creditworthy vis-a-vis the accused. The effect of the aforesaid improvement(s) and embellishment(s) respectively made by PW-3 and PW-11, both co-victims of the assault purportedly perpetrated on their respective persons, by the accused besides the effect of independent eye witnesses to the occurrence NOT supporting the prosecution case is of, the charge against the accused standing not efficaciously proven. 10. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended with much vigor, before this Court, that with the Doctor concerned proving his preparing the respective MLCs, of covictims (a) MLCs whereof are respectively borne in Ext. PW2/B and in Ext. PW2/C, (b) also the injuries being vis-a-vis Sunil Kumar being divulged therein to endanger his life AND his also testifying of the injuries borne on the respective person of both co-victims being causable thereon by user of cricket bat and wooden wickets, recovery(s) whereof occurred under apt memos (c) thereupon all evident improvement(s) and embellishments, rendered by PW3 and PW11 in their respective testifications'' vis-a-vis their previously recorded statements in writing also the effect of purported independent eye witnesses, resiling, from their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, NOT, detracting from the vigor of the prosecution case. The aforesaid submissions, would find force and command with this Court, only, upon evident non occurrence of the hereinafter extracted infirmities in the prosecution case, (a) in the FIR, the informant discloses, of, the assailant(s) being Ramesh Chand, son of Prakesh Chand, Ashok Kumar, son of Madan Lal, Ajay Kumar, son of Ramesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar @ Shittu, son of Ramesh Kumar and Anil Kumar, son of Om Prakesh, (b) whereas subsequent thereto, the Investigating Officer, by, belatedly recording the supplementary statements of the victims/informant, his proceeding to, arraign, along with the aforesaid, one Rakesh Kumar son of late Bakshi Ram and one Anil Kumar, son of Om Prakesh, (c) nowat, with both PW3 and PW11, PW3 in their respective cross-examinations, making disclosures, of theirs being previously aware, of the names and identities of all the accused, whereas theirs, not making a prompt disclosure, to, the Investigating Officer qua the involvement of all the accused in the relevant occurrence, (d) hence begets an inference of the covictims striving to falsely implicate all the accused, in the relevant occurrence (e ) Even if PW3, in sequel, to his being belabored by the accused, fell unconscious, hence was rendered incapacitated to promptly making apt communication, to, the Investigating Officer, especially vis-a-vis the names of all the accused, (f) also does not carry any effect, given, co-victim Shashi Bhushan, in his crossexamination making a vivid disclosure, of his previously holding knowledge of the identity(s) of all the accused, (g) whereupon, his omissions to initially in the FIR, make disclosure(s), qua the involvement of all the accused in the relevant occurrence, contrarily carries the inevitable effect, of hence fortification accruing vis-a-vis the hereinabove inference (e) of the subsequent inculpation of the accused concerned, through, subsequent belatedly rendered supplementary statements being hence engineered, by deployment of sheer contrivance by the Investigating Officer concerned besides by plain afterthought(s), (h) thereupon rendering the subsequent inculpation, of, the accused, not, named in the FIR besides also the inculpation in the relevant occurrence, of the accused named in the FIR, to beget stain(s) of suspicion. The effect of the aforesaid inference, of purported independent eye witnesses to the occurrence, not, supporting the prosecution case. The effect of the aforesaid inference, of purported independent eye witnesses to the occurrence, not, supporting the prosecution case. AND, of, both the victims in their respective testifications making critical improvements besides gross embellishments, from, their respectively recorded previous statements in writing rather remains intact besides renders the genesis of the prosecution case to beget erosion. 11. Apart therefrom, under seizure memo Ext. PW10/A, Ext. P1, "bat" and under seizure memo Ext. PW10/B, Ext. P2 to P4 "wickets" stood respectively handed over by coaccused Vijay, Ajay and Anil, to the Investigating Officer. All the aforesaid purported weapons, of offence with purported user whereof, injuries were inflicted by the accused upon the victims, hence visibly came to be respectively handed over by them to the Investigating officer concerned, only during, the course of theirs suffering custodial interrogation. The aforesaid incriminatory piece(s) of evidence, constitute, confessional incriminatory evidence(s) vis-a-vis the accused, thereupon, for, all the aforesaid purported weapons of offence being construable to be relevant piece(s) of inculpatory evidence(s) besides theirs being amenable to imputation of credence rather peremptorily enjoined the Investigating Officer, to, within domain of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "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 proved." prior thereto record the respective custodial confessional disclosure statement(s), of, each of the accused, with, communication(s) therein, in respect of their respective place (s) of keeping and hiding, by each of them. However, in the Investigating Officer concerned, prior to his purportedly effectuating recovery(s) of purported weapon(s) of offence, purportedly at the instance of each of the accused, effectuation(s) whereof respectively occurred under memo(s) Ext. PW10/A and Ext. PW10/B, he openly departed from the aforesaid injunction(s) of law, especially in respect of his prior thereto, (a) eliciting the custodial confessional statement(s) of each of the accused, in respect of their respective place(s) of keeping and hiding by each of them, (b) also in respect of his reducing into writing their relevant custodial confessional disclosures (c) besides his thereon obtaining the signature(s) of the accused AND of the witnesses thereto. The aforesaid departure(s) are grave, hence beget an open infraction, of the peremptory mandate borne in section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereupon the apposite recoveries are rendered construable to be bald besides naked, with a concomitant effect of hence the user in the relevant incident, of all purported weapons of offence, being fortifying dispelled, (d) especially when in respect of their user by the accused, the independent eye witnesses to the occurrence, omit, to lend, support to the prosecution case. Cumulatively, all purported recovery(s), fall outside the precincts of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, hence are un-amenable, to any imputation of any credence thereon, rather the apt recovery(s) in proof of charges are neither admissible nor relevant piece(s) of evidence. 12. A wholesome analysis of evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court, suffers, from a gross perversity and absurdity or it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of conviction has committed a 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 deem it fit and appropriate to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. 13. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of 27.11.2006 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the offences charged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to them. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records be sent down forthwith.