JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. whereby he reversed the findings of conviction pronounced upon the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur, also hence proceeded to acquit the accused. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Banto Devi has reported the matter to the Police Station, Bhoranj, stating therein that on 16.10.1997 she alongwith her sone Dile Ram and daughter in law Karmi Devi were working in their fields. At about 11 a.m. She came back from the fields whereas her son and daughter in law remained there. At about 11.15 a.m all the accused persons after having formed an unlawful assembly, entered the land of the complainant and damaged the wall of her house. Thereafter, the accused cried for the help and the accused person ranaway from the spot. Upon this information, the case came to be registered against the accused on completion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, the Investigating Officer concerned prepared besides filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned. 3. Thereupon, the accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 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 chose to adduce documentary evidence in their defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction upon them with respect to the charges put to them “whereas” the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, returned findings of acquittal upon the accused. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded upon the accused/respondents, by the learned Court below. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded upon the accused/respondents, by the learned Court below. The learned Additional Advocate General, has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below being not harbored upon a proper appreciation “by it” of the evidence on record rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation “by it" of the material evidence on record. Hence, he, contends that the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction besides concomitantly, appropriate sentences being imposed upon the accused/respondents. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below being based on a mature and balanced appreciation “by it” of the evidence on record, hence theirs not warranting 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 support of the prosecution case, the informant stepped into the witness box wherein she testified in corroboration to the recitals occurring in the apposite F.I.R borne in Ext.PW-15/A. However, even though her sole testification qua the occurrence comprised in her examination-in-chief “given its not” suffering from any taint of any critical contradictions in respect thereof occurring in her cross-examination also given her testimony “being not gripped” with any blemish of any gross improvements or gross embellishment “from her” previous statement, recorded in writing, would hence be sufficient to constrain this Court to return findings of conviction upon the accused/ respondents’, for theirs committing the offences in respect whereof they stood charged. Nonetheless, with the prosecution depending upon the testimony of purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence, for hence its purveying corroborative vigour to the testification of the victim, thereupon the testification qua the occurrence rendered by the victim also is enjoined to hold no erring critical contradictions vis-à-vis the purported ocular versions in respect thereto rendered by purported ocular witnesses, rather for lending assurance to the prosecution case “all” in their respective depositions are enjoined to in respect thereof make communications with absolute intra se concurrence. For hence determining whether there exist any visible intra se contradictions interse the testimony of PW-1 vis-à-vis the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4, it is imperative to make an allusion to the deposition of PW-3 who, however, in his examination in chief has resiled from his previous statement recorded in writing, thereupon he did not obviously purvey the apposite corroboration to the testification rendered qua the occurrence, by PW-1. However, the mere factum of his reneging from his previous statement “is not sufficient” to discard the prosecution case, significantly when it was yet open for the learned APP to motion the learned trial Court for getting him declared hostile, “whereafter” on his motion receiving approbation “he” on holding him to a befitting cross-examination could endeavour to make elicitations from him, for hence belying his deposition existing in his examination in chief also “he” for eroding the veracity of his testification occurring in his examination in chief “could” confront, PW-1 with his previous statement recording in writing, besides any apposite affirmative elicitations thereat unearthed from him were also readable in evidence “dehors” his reneging from his previous statement in writing. Even though PW-3 “on” being held to cross-examination by the learned APP “on” his standing declared hostile, has though during course thereof, hence ascribed an incriminatory role to accused Roshan Lal, however, therein he omits to disclose the fact of co-accused Kashmiro Devi and Sanna Devi “alongwith the former” in contemporanity with the relevant occurrence taking place, hence recording their respective presence thereat, whereupon his presence at the site of occurrence is obviously shrouded in an aura of doubt, rendering his testimony to be discardable. Hence, with PW-3 in his cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned APP “not” ascribing any incriminatory role vis-à-vis the lady accused also holds the ensuing effect of his not lending the relevant assured corroboration to the testification of PW-1 also thereupon his presence at the site of occurrence stands dispelled. Hence, with PW-3 in his cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned APP “not” ascribing any incriminatory role vis-à-vis the lady accused also holds the ensuing effect of his not lending the relevant assured corroboration to the testification of PW-1 also thereupon his presence at the site of occurrence stands dispelled. PW-4 another purported ocular witness to the occurrence “though” in his examination-in-chief corroborates the version qua the occurrence deposed by PW-1 “yet” with his in his cross-examination ascribing vis-à-vis the lady accused “an” incriminatory role with respect to theirs respectively wielding a “Darati” and “a” wooden stick, wielding whereof respectively by the aforesaid remains uncommunicated either by PW-1 or by PW-3 also hence galvanizes an inference qua his presence at the site of occurrence being a sequel of sheer invention of the Investigating Officer also hence his presence at the site of occurrence gathers an aura of doubt, rendering his testimony to not purvey any unflinching corroboration vis-à-vis the testimony of PW-1 Furthermore, even in his cross-examination he deposes that no scuffle took place in his presence whereupon his presence at the site of occurrence stands clinchingly disproved. The effect of the aforesaid discussion is that the solitary testimony of PW-1 is unamenable for imputation of credence thereon, moreso, when neither the “ghan” nor the “wooden stick” purportedly wielded by the accused stood not recovered under any relevant efficacious memos prepared by the investigating officer concerned. 10. Be that as it may, PW-1 testifies that at the relevant time an ad-interim injunction with respect to the relevant property “being” in operation upon her son Dile Ram, factum whereof remained uncontroverted. In face thereof, the veracity of the incriminatory role ascribed by PW-1 upon Roshan Lal “significantly” with respect to his committing an offence under Section 427 IPC, role whereof rests upon the factum of his with user of “Ghan” damaging the walls of the house of Dile Ram “is” enjoined to be tested. For making gaugings thereof, even the ill-effect of the testification of PW-1 evidently remaining uncorroborated by all the purported ocular witnesses to the ill-fated occurrence may stand subsumed “by” unflinching proof standing adduced with respect to recovery “thereof” standing validly effectuated. For making gaugings thereof, even the ill-effect of the testification of PW-1 evidently remaining uncorroborated by all the purported ocular witnesses to the ill-fated occurrence may stand subsumed “by” unflinching proof standing adduced with respect to recovery “thereof” standing validly effectuated. For imputing validation to effectuation of recovery of “Ghan” at the purported instance of the accused, enjoined its recovery emanating “through” an efficacious recovery memo, recovery memo whereof stood preceded by a disclosure statement in respect of its place of hiding and keeping by him “standing” efficaciously proven to stand validly prepared by the Investigating Officer. However, co-accused Roshan Lal evidently did not either make any disclosure statement nor any recovery of “Ghan” stood in sequel thereto stood effectuated at his instance by the Investigating Officer concerned “rather it” stood handed over by PW-1 to the Investigating Officer, in respect whereof memo Ext.PW-12/A stood prepared. In aftermath, the effect of absence of the aforesaid relevant evidence with respect to validly prepared memos in respect of effectuation of recoveries thereunder of “Ghan” begets a formidable inference that its appearance at the site of occurrence “is” rendered suspect also its user by co-accused is vulnerable to skepticism, rather its appearance appears “to be” with intra se collusion inter se PW-1 and the Investigating Officer concerned “hence conjured”. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Fast Track Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by it does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 12. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgement is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.