JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla H.P. where by he pronounced an order of acquittal qua the accused qua the offences allegedly committed by them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.7.2005 at about 2.15 p.m. a group of SFI activists led by Vijendra Mehra and Balbir Prashar entered into the office of the Vice Chancellor, H.P. University, Shimla, and forced Vice Chancellor that reevaluation of the failed/compartment students be got done at the earliest and also that MBA entrance result list be displayed immediately on the notice board. It is alleged that Vice Chancellor directed the Controller of Examination in the presence of these students that as soon as it is possible their re-evaluation results will be got declared. However, Vice Chancellor expressed his helplessness in displaying the list of MBA entrance test because this is purely a prerogative of the Departmental Council and the students have already discussed this problem with them. There after they confined the VC in his office by locking the doors for more than one and half hours. The Vice Chancellor was prevented to discharge his official duty and even threatened him to do away with his life. On the complaint made by the Vice Chancellor an F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons and 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 342, 353 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC 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 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. They did not choose to lead 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 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 warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing 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 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 entire genesis of the prosecution case stands enunciated in F.I.R. borne on Ext. PW-9/A. The complainant is the then Vice Chancellor of the H.P. University. The alleged penal misdemeanors occurred in his office. The complainant in Ext.PW-9/A, has with vividity, narrated therein, the entire incident which occurred inside his office yet therein he has only named one Shri K.P. Dogar to eye witness the relevant occurrence where as the prosecution led into the witness box other purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence whose names stood un-recited in the apposite complaint by the complainant as ocular witnesses to the occurrence. Consequently, the inevitable inference which ensues there from is (a) the presence at the site of occurrence of even Mr. K.P. Dogar standing belied. The prosecution witnesses other than Mr. Dogar not eye witnessing the occurrence (b) the introduction by the prosecution of purported eye witnesses to the occurrence being a contrivance besides invention merely for foisting qua the prosecution case qua its purportedly holding veracity. 10. K.P. Dogar standing belied. The prosecution witnesses other than Mr. Dogar not eye witnessing the occurrence (b) the introduction by the prosecution of purported eye witnesses to the occurrence being a contrivance besides invention merely for foisting qua the prosecution case qua its purportedly holding veracity. 10. Though the solitary testification qua the occurrence rendered by the complainant was per se sufficient, to, constrain this Court to pronounce an order of conviction upon the accused yet the efficacy of his testification stands rendered blunted by the factum aforesaid of the prosecution introducing invented witnesses who purportedly eye witnessed the occurrence also the prosecution case suffers emasculation from the evident facet of the prosecution in addition to K.P. Dogar who stands recited in the apposite complaint, to remain present at the site of occurrence, its yet concerting to leverage the charge by making dependence upon other purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence. With the complainant omitting to in the apposite complaint except Mr. K.P. Dogar disclose their names, stirs an inference from this Court qua their presence besides the presence of Mr. K.P. Dogar at the site of occurrence hence standing belied. Significantly, with all the prosecution witnesses who purportedly eye witnessed the occurrence being under the administrative control of the complainant, the then Vice Chancellor of the H.P. University, wherefrom it stands inferred qua his hence holding awareness qua their identity yet the complainant in the apposite F.I.R though disclosing therein qua the relevant occurrence taking place inside his office yet there in his except Mr. K.P. Dogar omitting to disclose qua it standing eye witnessed by all aforesaid PWs, whereas the prosecution lays dependence on their respective testifications where upon for reiteration the omission of the complainant, to, in his complaint in sequel where to F.I.R. embodied in Ext.PW-9/A stood registered at the police station concerned, to make a disclosure of all the prosecution witnesses who purportedly eye witnessed the occurrence, does make a graphic display qua the testifications of all the purported eye witnesses to the occurrence whereupon the prosecution depends, to lend succor to the version embodied in Ext.PW-9/A not holding any tenacity besides the testification of PW-2 wherein he in his cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned APP on his standing declared hostile hence purveying succor to the charge also PW-3 likewise in his testification occurring in his cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned APP on his standing declared hostile purveying support to the prosecution case, in addition PW-4 and PW-5 like wise in their respective testifications occurring in their cross-examinations to which they stood subjected to by the learned APP concerned lending support to the charge hence being insignificant, conspicuously when theirs purportedly eye witnessing the occurrence stands engulfed in a shroud of doubt arising from the complainant withholding their names in the complaint, despite his holding knowledge qua their names and identities, in sequel thereto, it appears qua the prosecution contriving the aforesaid ocular witnesses recording their presence at the site of occurrence whereupon the, effect if any, of theirs in any part of their respective testifications lending succor to the charge stands subsumed in its entirety. 11. More over, it appears qua in the complainant naming in the complaint qua only Mr. K.P. Dogar eye witnessing the occurrence standing spurred from his conceiving him to be a person befitting to repose confidence, for succoring the version delineated by him in the apposite complaint. It also appears qua the complainant despite the purported presence there at of other purported ocular witnesses, his yet omitting to recite their names in the apposite complaint, merely his conceiving qua theirs not amenable to earn his trust. It also appears qua the complainant despite the purported presence there at of other purported ocular witnesses, his yet omitting to recite their names in the apposite complaint, merely his conceiving qua theirs not amenable to earn his trust. The contemplation of the complainant whereupon he stood constrained to name in his complaint only one of the purported eye witnesses to the occurrence and to omit naming other purported eye witnesses to the occurrence, has nonetheless begotten the ill fate of the entire version qua the occurrence hence standing jettisoned. The complainant in his cross-examination, to which he stood subjected to, feigning ignorance qua the factum of the locking of the door of his chamber from inside, occurring, at the time contemporaneous to the alleged occurrence taking place thereat also his echoing therein qua his on account of lapse of memory standing disabled to recollect whether other PWs besides Police Officials being available inside his chamber, also spurs an inference qua his there upon also denying the presence of even Mr. K.P. Dogar inside his room at the time contemporaneous to the relevant occurrence, there upon the testification of Mr. K.P. Dogar in purported corroboration to the testification of the complainant is ridden with a vice of concoction also the version testified by the complainant looses its tenacity. In aftermath, the entire recitals embodied in the F.I.R suffer from an inherent vice of falsity. 12. For the reasons which stand recorded here in above, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a whole some and harmonious manner apart there from 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 where upon its judgment warrants no interference. 13. 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 forth with.