JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal rendered on 6.6.2008 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mandi, District Mandi upon criminal case No. 42- II/2001. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 25.2.2001 at about 1:45 p.m. in village Thunda Thana within the jurisdiction of Police Station Balh, Mandi, all the accused have formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the said unlawful assembly the accused persons have given beatings to Oma Devi, Inder Dev, Padam Singh and Nirmala Devi and voluntarily caused simple injuries to them by means of Danda and Darat, which is sharp edged cutting instrument. At the relevant time, the accused Purnu, Lohari Ram and Indira Devi were armed with Darat and accused Amar Singh and Raju were armed with Danda. At the relevant time, the accused persons were lopping the trees in the Govt. land which was in possession of the complainant party. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court, for their committing offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324 read with Section 149 IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein each of the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of evidence existing on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal upon the accused/respondents herein, for their committing offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded upon the accused/respondents. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation “by it” of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross-mis-appreciation “by it” of the material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation “by it” of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross-mis-appreciation “by it” of the 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. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents herein has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation by him of the 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. In the ill fated occurrence PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 sustained injuries on their respective persons, injuries whereof find reflection in the apposite MLCs prepared by the Doctor concerned, MLCs whereof stand comprised in Ext. PW 9/A, Ext. PW9/B, PW 9/C and Mark-X. PW-9 who prepared the aforesaid MLCs made a categorical disclosure in his deposition that the injuries borne therein being causable by user of a sharp edged weapon being Darat bearing Ext. P-3, exhibits whereof stood shown to him in Court during the course of the recording of his deposition. Also he has made a firm disclosure in his testification qua the injuries occurring in the aforesaid MLCs, respectively exhibited as Exts. PW9/A, PW9/B, PW9/C and Mark-X, being also causable by user of danda, bearing Ext. P-5, exhibit whereof also stood shown to him in Court. The aforesaid deposition of PW-9, when stands combined with the depositions of injured witnesses, who respectively deposed as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, significantly with the latters’ testifications’ in respect of the ill-fated occurrence occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief are bereft of any critical taints therein of, any gross contradictions vis-à-vis their respective cross-examinations, besides when their respective depositions are also bereft of any taints of any gross interse contradictions, thereupon begets a firm cumulative inference of theirs testifications acquiring vigour, also hence of the prosecution succeeding in establishing the charge framed against the accused. The testifications rendered by the aforesaid injured witnesses, even if they emanate from interested witnesses, hence would not perse render them to lose their sanctity unless evidence stood adduced in respect of availability of independent eye witnesses’, at the site whereat the alleged occurrence took place, witnesses, whereof, despite their evident availability thereat yet remained unjoined in the relevant investigations conducted by the Investigating Officer. Besides, on the Investigating Officer concerned deliberately omitting to associate evidently available independent eye witnesses to the occurrence also would thereupon render his investigations to acquire vices of critical interestedness, besides would rear conclusions of his holding slanted/skewed investigations in respect of the offences charged. For making discernments in respect of evident availability of independent eye witnesses, at the site of occurrence, an allusion to the recitals borne in FIR comprised in Ext. PW1/A, unveils unfoldments occurring therein qua availability of independent witnesses namely Gambhri Devi, Sadhu Ram and Khem Singh at the site of occurrence, at the time contemporaneous to its taking place thereat, however the Investigating Officer, though, proceeded to record the statement in writing, of, one amongst them, namely Gambhri Devi, yet he omitted to record the statements of Sadhu Ram and of Khem Singh. Moreover, the prosecution omitted, to, lead into the witness box the aforesaid Gambhri Devi, whereas, thereupon she would have rendered an impartisan version qua the occurrence, bereft of any vice of interestedness. Insequel, omission of the prosecution to lead into the witness box, one, Gambhri Devi, an evident eye witness to the occurrence, constrains a conclusion that thereupon the truth qua the occurrence, was, concerted to be smothered by the Investigating Officer besides by the Public Prosecutor concerned. The aforesaid inference qua the Investigating Officer concerned smothering emergence of truth qua the genesis of the occurrence is also galvanized, from, the Investigating Officer omitting to record the previous statements in writing respectively of Sadhu Ram and of Khem Singh, whereas both along with Gambhri Devi were evident eye witnesses to the occurrence. The aforesaid inference qua the Investigating Officer concerned smothering emergence of truth qua the genesis of the occurrence is also galvanized, from, the Investigating Officer omitting to record the previous statements in writing respectively of Sadhu Ram and of Khem Singh, whereas both along with Gambhri Devi were evident eye witnesses to the occurrence. The effect of the aforesaid inferences, is, of Investigating Officer holding slanted/skewed investigations into the offences constituted in the FIR borne in Ext.PW1/A, whereupon this Court is constrained, to, not impute sanctity to his Investigation nor the testimonies of the interested eye witnesses, even though their depositions are bereft of any vice of any intrase or interse contradiction are amenable to imputation of any credence thereto. 10. Furthermore, investigations were also held in respect of FIR No. 89 of 2001, FIR whereof stood lodged by the complainant/accused herein, in respect of the very occurrence in respect whereof, the instant FIR stood lodged. During the course of investigations held qua FIR No. 89 of 2001, as, apparent on a reading of the cross-examination, of PW-7, the MLCs’ of the accused therein/complainant hereat, stood prepared by the Doctor concerned, wherefrom the ensuing sequel is of the accused herein, also during the course of the relevant occurrence, hence receiving injuries upon their respective persons, whereas with the injuries sustained by them remaining unexplained, when, stands coagulated with the effect of evidently available aforesaid eye witnesses, at the site of occurrence, hence remaining unexamined, thereupon, begets an inference, of, the Investigating Officer concerned holding ultra interested slanted investigations in respect of the penal misdemeanors ascribed to the accused. Consequently, this Court is constrained to not accept the versions propagated by the injured victims. 11. Under Ext.PW1/B, danda Ext. P 2 stood handed over by co-accused Manti Devi @ Parwati, to, the Investigating Officer besides under Ext. PW1/C and Ext. PW3/A, Danda Ext. P 1 and Ext. P-5 stood respectively handed over by Lahori Ram, Amru and Dev Raj @ Raju to the Investigating Officer concerned. All the aforesaid purported weapons, of offence with purported user whereof, injuries were inflicted by the accused upon the victims, hence came to be handed over, respectively, by them to the Investigating Officer concerned only during the course of theirs suffering custodial interrogation. All the aforesaid purported weapons, of offence with purported user whereof, injuries were inflicted by the accused upon the victims, hence came to be handed over, respectively, by them to the Investigating Officer concerned only during the course of theirs suffering custodial interrogation. The aforesaid incriminatory pieces of evidence constitute confessional incriminatory evidences vis-à-vis the accused, thereupon, for, all the aforesaid purported weapons of offence being construable to be relevant pieces of inculpatory evidences besides theirs being amenable to stand exhibited peremptorily enjoined the Investigating Officer, to, within the 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 statements, of, each of the accused, with, communications therein, in respect of their respective places of keeping and hiding, by each of them. However, in the Investigating Officer concerned, prior to his purportedly effectuating recoverys of purported weapons of offence, at the instance of each of the accused, effectuations whereof respectively occurred under memos Ext. PW1/B and Ext. PW1/C and Ext. PW3/A, he openly departed from the aforesaid injunctions of law especially in respect of his eliciting the custodial confessional statements of each of the accused, in respect of their respective places of keeping and hiding by each of them, also in respect of his reducing into writing their relevant custodial confessional disclosures besides his thereon obtaining the signatures of the accused and of the witnesses thereto. The aforesaid departures 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 fortifyingly dispelled, especially when in respect of their user by the accused, the independent eye witnesses to the occurrence remained unexamined. Cumulatively, all purported recoverys, fall outside the precincts of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, hence are to be construable to be un-amenable, to, any imputation of any credence thereon, rather the apt recoverys in proof of charges are neither admissible nor relevant pieces of evidence. 12. Be that as it may, the inefficacious manner of recovery of purported weapons of offence, from, each of the accused by the Investigating Officer concerned, when is construed in conjunction with the aforesaid inference qua the Investigating Officer holding tainted investigations, thereupon, this Court is constrained to conclude that there is no merit in the instant appeal. 13. For the reasons which have been 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 the material on record by the learned appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and nonappreciation of evidence on record. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.