JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since Cr. Appeal No. 319 of 2010, and, Cr. Appeal No. 417 of 2010, are, directed against a common verdict, respectively pronounced, upon, Case No. 24AR/10 of 07/08, and, upon, Case No. 22R/10 of 07/08, where through, the learned First Appellate Court hence pronounced, in, reversal, of, the verdict, of, conviction, rendered, upon, the accused, rather by the learned trial Judge, hence, an order, of, acquittal upon them, hence both the afore appeals, are, amenable, for, a common verdict being pronounced thereon. 2. In the FIR, borne in Ext. PW-1/A, a, narration is encapsulated, vis-a-vis, with user of 'khukhari', hence, injuries pronounced, in Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), being entailed, upon, the victim, injuries whereof, are, extracted hereinafter:- "(i) thumb-a lacerated wound round shocked, size about 4 cm-6, 4 stitches in retie, painful moment right thumb. (ii) A abrasion 2 mm x 5 cm on the left hand palm aspect. (iii) tenderness is present on the right sholder region, no restriction in moment. (iv) abrasion on the neck anterior side: 2mm x 6 cm." 3. However, the learned Additional Advocate General, contents with much vigor before this Court, that, despite PW-1, proving all the echoings, as, borne in Ext. PW1/A (MLC), and, also with the ocular versions, vis-a-vis, the, occurrence, being rendered with the fullest, inter-se corroborations, hence by the victim, and, by PW-3, and, by PW-4, (i) and, also with their respective testifications, rather not making any echoings, qua theirs' either improving, or, embellishing, upon, their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, thereupon the impugned verdict, hence warrants an interference, from, this Court. 4. However, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the afore testitifications, though stand rendered, with, the fullest, inter-se corroborations, by, the victim, and, by PW-3, and, by PW-4, yet they are amenable, for, being discarded, (a) in Ext. PW-1/A (FIR) there being candid echoings, vis-a-vis, the relevant weapon, being khokhari, whereas, all the afore proclaim qua the injuries, reflected in Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), being caused by user, of, Chhuri (a sharped edged weapon), rather by the accused, (ii) and also, with there being contradistincvity, in, the sizes, dimensions, and measurements of khukhari, and, of knife. PW-1/A (FIR) there being candid echoings, vis-a-vis, the relevant weapon, being khokhari, whereas, all the afore proclaim qua the injuries, reflected in Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), being caused by user, of, Chhuri (a sharped edged weapon), rather by the accused, (ii) and also, with there being contradistincvity, in, the sizes, dimensions, and measurements of khukhari, and, of knife. Necessarily also, hence this Court aptly concludes, qua, the genesis of the prosecution case, embodied in the FIR, not begetting, to the fullest, hence corroboration, either from the deposition of the victim, nor from the corroborative thereto, rather depositions, of, purported ocular witnesses, in as much, as, PW-3, and, PW-4. 5. Be that as it may, the vigor of the afore inferences, is fortified, by PW-1, in his examination-in-chief, hence making echoings, qua the weapon of offence, as used, for causing the apt injuries, as, borne in Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), being blunt, and, though credible ocular testifications benumb the vigor, of, medical evidence, yet, with victim, and, also PW-3, and, PW-4, making candid echoings, in their respective testifications, vis-a-vis, the accused rather wielding a sharp edged weapon, and, also with their afore testifications, for all the afore reasons, being inferred, to, be outside the range, of, the echoings, borne, in the FIR, (i) besides when Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), pronounces, vis-a-vis, rather, a, lacerated wound, than an incised wound, being entailed upon the victim, (ii) thereupon also, it is apt to conclude, qua the testified version made by the victim, and, by PW-3 and PW-4, vis-a-vis, the accused at the relevant time, hence with user, of, sharp edged weapon, causing injuries, upon, the victim, hence loosing apt vigor’s, and, nor hence the ocular evidence predominating rather hence medical evidence, whereupon obviously, the, concomitant effect thereof, is, qua the prosecution rather failing to prove the genesis, of, the occurrence. 6. Furthermore, even though, through Ext. PW-5/A, (Seizure memo), a knife stood recovered, by the Investigating Officer, and, at the purported instance of the accused, (ii) however, when a perusal of the recitals, as, borne, in Ext. 6. Furthermore, even though, through Ext. PW-5/A, (Seizure memo), a knife stood recovered, by the Investigating Officer, and, at the purported instance of the accused, (ii) however, when a perusal of the recitals, as, borne, in Ext. PW-5/A, rather making candid unfoldments, qua the accused, handing over the afore weapon of offence, to, the Investigating Officer concerned, (iii) and, obviously when prior thereto, no disclosure statement, was, made by him, to, the Investigating Officer, with apt echoings, borne therein, vis-a-vis, the place, of, hiding, and, camouflaging, of, the afore weapon of offence, (iv) whereas, for, the recovery, as, made through PW-5/A, and, also for its constituting, a, valid incriminatory piece, of evidence, against the accused, rather enjoined him, to, hence preceding therewith, rather scribe, the, afore ordained disclosure statement, hence of the accused, (v) whereas, with the afore factum remaining unspoken, even in Ext. PW-5/A, thereupon the purported incriminatory weapon, of, offence, as, stood recovered, through Ext. PW-5/A, cannot either be construed, to, be any valid discovery, made therethrough, nor is any valid incriminatory confessional statement, hence, falling within the ambit, of, Section 27, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (vi) rather, for, non-compliance vis-a-vis, the mandate, borne in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, hence the, bar, of, the statutory contemplations, embodied in Section 24, of, the Indian Evidence Act, against, any confessional evidence, made, during, custodial interrogation rather being receivable, hence begetting apt attraction. Emphatically, also when there, is, apparent dis-concurrence, vis-a-vis, the disclosures, in, the FIR, qua the relevant weapon, of, offence, inasmuch, as, it being echoed therein, to, be, a, khokhari, and, vis-a-vis, the recovery, of, a knife, as, made through Ext. PW-5/A, (vii) pre-eminently, also when production of knife, and, its purported recovery, vide Ext. PW-5/A, is, vulnerable, to, an inference qua the Investigating Officer, after purchasing it, from, the bazar, his ensuring, its, fictitious recovery, at the purported instance of the accused, through, his drawing, a, fictitious memo, borne in Ext. PW5/A. 7. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned First Appellate 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 trial court, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 8. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeals, and, they are dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation. Personal and surety bonds stand discharged. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since Cr. Appeal No. 319 of 2010, and, Cr. Appeal No. 417 of 2010, are, directed against a common verdict, respectively pronounced, upon, Case No. 24AR/10 of 07/08, and, upon, Case No. 22R/10 of 07/08, where through, the learned First Appellate Court hence pronounced, in, reversal, of, the verdict, of, conviction, rendered, upon, the accused, rather by the learned trial Judge, hence, an order, of, acquittal upon them, hence both the afore appeals, are, amenable, for, a common verdict being pronounced thereon. 2. In the FIR, borne in Ext. PW-1/A, a, narration is encapsulated, vis-a-vis, with user of 'khukhari', hence, injuries pronounced, in Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), being entailed, upon, the victim, injuries whereof, are, extracted hereinafter:- "(i) thumb-a lacerated wound round shocked, size about 4 cm-6, 4 stitches in retie, painful moment right thumb. (ii) A abrasion 2 mm x 5 cm on the left hand palm aspect. (iii) tenderness is present on the right sholder region, no restriction in moment. (iv) abrasion on the neck anterior side: 2mm x 6 cm." 3. However, the learned Additional Advocate General, contents with much vigor before this Court, that, despite PW-1, proving all the echoings, as, borne in Ext. PW1/A (MLC), and, also with the ocular versions, vis-a-vis, the, occurrence, being rendered with the fullest, inter-se corroborations, hence by the victim, and, by PW-3, and, by PW-4, (i) and, also with their respective testifications, rather not making any echoings, qua theirs' either improving, or, embellishing, upon, their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, thereupon the impugned verdict, hence warrants an interference, from, this Court. 4. However, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the afore testitifications, though stand rendered, with, the fullest, inter-se corroborations, by, the victim, and, by PW-3, and, by PW-4, yet they are amenable, for, being discarded, (a) in Ext. PW-1/A (FIR) there being candid echoings, vis-a-vis, the relevant weapon, being khokhari, whereas, all the afore proclaim qua the injuries, reflected in Ext. PW-1/A (FIR) there being candid echoings, vis-a-vis, the relevant weapon, being khokhari, whereas, all the afore proclaim qua the injuries, reflected in Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), being caused by user, of, Chhuri (a sharped edged weapon), rather by the accused, (ii) and also, with there being contradistincvity, in, the sizes, dimensions, and measurements of khukhari, and, of knife. Necessarily also, hence this Court aptly concludes, qua, the genesis of the prosecution case, embodied in the FIR, not begetting, to the fullest, hence corroboration, either from the deposition of the victim, nor from the corroborative thereto, rather depositions, of, purported ocular witnesses, in as much, as, PW-3, and, PW-4. 5. Be that as it may, the vigor of the afore inferences, is fortified, by PW-1, in his examination-in-chief, hence making echoings, qua the weapon of offence, as used, for causing the apt injuries, as, borne in Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), being blunt, and, though credible ocular testifications benumb the vigor, of, medical evidence, yet, with victim, and, also PW-3, and, PW-4, making candid echoings, in their respective testifications, vis-a-vis, the accused rather wielding a sharp edged weapon, and, also with their afore testifications, for all the afore reasons, being inferred, to, be outside the range, of, the echoings, borne, in the FIR, (i) besides when Ext. PW-1/A (MLC), pronounces, vis-a-vis, rather, a, lacerated wound, than an incised wound, being entailed upon the victim, (ii) thereupon also, it is apt to conclude, qua the testified version made by the victim, and, by PW-3 and PW-4, vis-a-vis, the accused at the relevant time, hence with user, of, sharp edged weapon, causing injuries, upon, the victim, hence loosing apt vigor’s, and, nor hence the ocular evidence predominating rather hence medical evidence, whereupon obviously, the, concomitant effect thereof, is, qua the prosecution rather failing to prove the genesis, of, the occurrence. 6. Furthermore, even though, through Ext. PW-5/A, (Seizure memo), a knife stood recovered, by the Investigating Officer, and, at the purported instance of the accused, (ii) however, when a perusal of the recitals, as, borne, in Ext. 6. Furthermore, even though, through Ext. PW-5/A, (Seizure memo), a knife stood recovered, by the Investigating Officer, and, at the purported instance of the accused, (ii) however, when a perusal of the recitals, as, borne, in Ext. PW-5/A, rather making candid unfoldments, qua the accused, handing over the afore weapon of offence, to, the Investigating Officer concerned, (iii) and, obviously when prior thereto, no disclosure statement, was, made by him, to, the Investigating Officer, with apt echoings, borne therein, vis-a-vis, the place, of, hiding, and, camouflaging, of, the afore weapon of offence, (iv) whereas, for, the recovery, as, made through PW-5/A, and, also for its constituting, a, valid incriminatory piece, of evidence, against the accused, rather enjoined him, to, hence preceding therewith, rather scribe, the, afore ordained disclosure statement, hence of the accused, (v) whereas, with the afore factum remaining unspoken, even in Ext. PW-5/A, thereupon the purported incriminatory weapon, of, offence, as, stood recovered, through Ext. PW-5/A, cannot either be construed, to, be any valid discovery, made therethrough, nor is any valid incriminatory confessional statement, hence, falling within the ambit, of, Section 27, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (vi) rather, for, non-compliance vis-a-vis, the mandate, borne in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, hence the, bar, of, the statutory contemplations, embodied in Section 24, of, the Indian Evidence Act, against, any confessional evidence, made, during, custodial interrogation rather being receivable, hence begetting apt attraction. Emphatically, also when there, is, apparent dis-concurrence, vis-a-vis, the disclosures, in, the FIR, qua the relevant weapon, of, offence, inasmuch, as, it being echoed therein, to, be, a, khokhari, and, vis-a-vis, the recovery, of, a knife, as, made through Ext. PW-5/A, (vii) pre-eminently, also when production of knife, and, its purported recovery, vide Ext. PW-5/A, is, vulnerable, to, an inference qua the Investigating Officer, after purchasing it, from, the bazar, his ensuring, its, fictitious recovery, at the purported instance of the accused, through, his drawing, a, fictitious memo, borne in Ext. PW5/A. 7. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned First Appellate 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 trial court, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 8. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeals, and, they are dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation. Personal and surety bonds stand discharged. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.