JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the convict against, the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. whereunder, he returned findings of conviction, upon, the appellant/convict, and, also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, vis-à-vis an offence, constituted under Section 452 IPC. He stood further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and, in default of fine, he stood sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for six months, vis-à-vis, an offence, punishable under, Section 307 IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 19.8.2012, Medical Officer, R.H. Hamirpur informed the police station, Sadar Hamirpur that one Sher Mohd was brought in the injured condition to the hospital for treatment, on which SI Amar Singh along with other police officials rushed to R.H. Hamorpur, whereon an application was moved to the Medical Officer for recording statement of the injured, but the doctor declared the injured unfit to give statement as he had suffered dangerous injury to life. S.I.Amar Singh went to the spot at Shashtar. I.O. recorded the statement of the complainant Veero Bibi under Section 154 Cr. P.C. to the effect that she is housewife and her husband is working as driver in Himachal Trading Company, Hamirpur. Their eldest daughter Priyanka is 15 years of age. About two years ago, marriage of Priyanka was settled with the accused, who was working as washer-man in police department at Jangal Beri. He started visiting her house frequently to meet Priyanka and caller her on telephone, but Priyanka did not take interest in talking to him. About 2-1/2 months ago, accused threatened the complainant through phone that in case she did not allow Priyanka to talk to him, he would either commit suicide in her courtyard or would kill someone and due to this reason, they broke the marriage proposal of Priyanka with the accused. On 18.8.2012, after taking dinner, she and her husband went to sleep on a cot in the verandah of the house and all the children went to sleep in the room of the house. On 18.8.2012, after taking dinner, she and her husband went to sleep on a cot in the verandah of the house and all the children went to sleep in the room of the house. During midnight of 18/19.2.2012 at 2:00 a.m, she heard a noise of thud and in the meantime, her husband cried loudly and sat on the cot at once. She switched on the torch and saw that accused was running towards bathroom/latrine side passage leaving behind his Darat in the verandah. Blood started oozing out from the right side head of her husband. She and her husband raised alarm, on which her father-in-law, brothers-in-law and neighbours came there. Her brothers-in-law and father-in-law shifted her husband to the hospital for treatment. The accused in order to kill her husband has caused dangerous injury on his head with a Darat. She and her brother-in-law Naseer Mohammad had seen the Darat by picking and kept on the same place. The blood was also lying on the spot and on the bed. Her children have also awaken and prayed for action against the accused. Ruqua was sent to police station, Sadar, Hamirpur, on which case FIR No. 226/2012 under Sections 452, 307 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was entrusted to HC Hans Raj. All the codal formalities were completed and the challan was prepared. 3. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence, stood was prepared, and, filed in the Court concerned. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court, for, his committing offence(s) punishable under Sections 452 and 307 of IPC. In proof of the charge, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded by the trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 6. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, and, the consequent therewith, imposition, of, the afore sentences, upon him. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 6. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, and, the consequent therewith, imposition, of, the afore sentences, upon him. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has concertedly, and, vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, 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 conviction, being reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, AND, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of 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. The learned trial Court, had, upon the consistent testifications, rendered by PW-1, and, by PW-2, vis-à-vis, the accused/convict, rearing a motive, for committing, the, offences charged, comprised in (a) the accused/convict, in the year 2010, making a proposal to marry their daughter, and, the requisite confabulations, qua therewith, being in progress, and, also his making visits to the home of PW-1 and PW-2, hence for meeting their daughter, and, besides his also proceeding to contact her over mobile phone, whereto both PW-1 and PW-2 rather objected, (b) whereupon the accused meted threatenings to kill someone or to commit suicide, ( c) hence alongwith other connected therewith evidence, adduced by the prosecution, hence concluded qua the charge being proven. At the outset, the, resting, of, findings of conviction, against the accused/convict, upon proof, of, motive, prima-facie, is neither justifiable nor sustainable, (d) given rather proof, of, motive, being enjoined to be adduced, only, upon, a, charge harbored, upon, indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence, and, it rather, loosing its efficacy, upon incredible ocular evidence, vis-à-vis, the incriminatory role, ascribed, vis-à-vis, the accused, rather being adduced by the prosecution. Since PW-1 and PW-2, are, the purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence, and, render purported consistent accounts, vis-à-vis, the participation, of, the accused, as a principal in the first degree, in the charged penal misdemeanor, (e) thereupon, the efficacy of their purported consistent ocular versions, qua the relevant occurrence, is, to be gauged, and, also fathomed. 10. In the afore endeavour, an incisive perusal, of, the testification rendered by PW-1, (a) and as, comprised in his examination-in-chief, hence underscores the factum, of her, sighting the accused, perpetrating an assault, with darat, borne in Ext. P-5, upon her husband, while both she, and, her husband were asleep, on a cot, kept in the verandah, of, their house. The afore testification is corroborated by PW-2. However, the identification, by both PW-1, and by PW- 2, of the accused, is, rather, susceptible, to, the deepest skepticion, (b) given PW-1, in her cross-examination, rendering a testification, qua, at the relevant time, it being dark, and, hers, with a rechargeable torch, being hence enabled to sight the accused. However, the afore testification is blemished, given the afore rechargeable torch, and, with aid whereof, she sighted the accused, rather being articulated, in her testification, to be hence rather standing handed over to the Investigating Officer concerned, yet, no consistent therewith echoing, hence being embodied, in their respectively rendered previous statement(s), in writing , (c ) AND with the afore apt improvement, hence stands construed, with, the afore torch remaining not evidently seized, through, a validly drawn seizure memo, (d) thereupon, the afore articulation, occurring in the cross-examination of PW-1, being hence construable to be an improvement, and, an embellishment, vis-àvis, her previously recorded statement in writing, and also, a sheer invention or contrivance, deployed by PW-1, and by PW-2, to despite, evidently, as testified by her, in her cross-examination, qua, all prevailing darkness, in the area concerned, to hence project, qua with aid thereof, theirs’ sighting the accused. However, PW-1 and PW-2, thereafter, proceeded, to, also testify that they sighted, the, accused with the aid, of, lights, occurring in or outside the verandah, (e) however, the afore rendered testification(s) by PW-1, and, by PW-2, are both frail, and also are rendered rather enfeebled by the site plan, borne in Ext. However, PW-1 and PW-2, thereafter, proceeded, to, also testify that they sighted, the, accused with the aid, of, lights, occurring in or outside the verandah, (e) however, the afore rendered testification(s) by PW-1, and, by PW-2, are both frail, and also are rendered rather enfeebled by the site plan, borne in Ext. PW15/A, wherein rather the occurrence of light(s), in or outside the verandah, remains un-echoed, (f) nor with PW-1, in her previous statement, recorded in writing, delineating therein, the, afore factum, hence, the afore echoing(s) made by PW-1, in her cross-examination, are also belied, and, thereupon, the consistent testification(s), rendered by PW-1 and by PW-2, vis-à-vis, theirs both sighting the accused, at the site of occurrence, also concomitantly are hence belied (g) and consequence thereof, is that their rectification(s) rather qua theirs’ identifying, the, accused, hence loosing efficacies, and, also, their ocular account, vis-à-vis, the participation, as a principal in the first degree of the accused, being rather subsumed, as also being hence effaced. 11. Be that as it may, added momentum vis-à-vis, the afore inference, is galvanized by the factum, of PW-2, in his examination-in-chief, making a disclosure, qua his sighting the accused, fleeing towards, his bathroom, (a) testification whereof is eroded, by the factum of site plan, borne in Ext. PW15/A, not making any disclosure, in consonance therewith, (b) thereupon the afore testification, is, to be construed, to be an engineered contrivance, by PW- 2, to rather, falsely implicate the accused. The recovery of darat, Ext. P-5, stood effectuated, through Ext. PW1/B. The recovery, of, the alleged weapon of offence, was, hence made therethrough, and, hence obviously, was not made at the instance of the accused, rather, the alleged weapon of offence, stood handed over, by the victim, vis-à-vis, the Investigating Officer, ( c) given PW-1 making disclosure in her previously recorded statement, in writing, borne in Ext. PW1/A, qua after committing the offence, the accused, dropping the darat, borne in Ext. P-5, at the relevant site, (d) besides with Ext. PW1/B standing cogently proven, and, with the recoveries made, through Ext. PW1/B, Ext. PW1/D, Ext. PW1/F, Ext. PW5/A, and, Ext. PW5/C, also standing cogently proven, to, stand effectuated hence therethrough, (e) thereupon hence the learned Addl. PW1/A, qua after committing the offence, the accused, dropping the darat, borne in Ext. P-5, at the relevant site, (d) besides with Ext. PW1/B standing cogently proven, and, with the recoveries made, through Ext. PW1/B, Ext. PW1/D, Ext. PW1/F, Ext. PW5/A, and, Ext. PW5/C, also standing cogently proven, to, stand effectuated hence therethrough, (e) thereupon hence the learned Addl. A.G., has contended, that dehors the afore infirmities, if any, existing in the testifications of PW-1, and of, PW-2, rather the afore cogently proven memos, existing on record, rather proving the charge. However, the afore submission is frail, (f) given with PW12/A, rather making a disclosure, that, all the aforesaid items, recovered under the aforestated memos, being sent to the FSL concerned, and, rather thereon, the FSL concerned, in Ext. P-1, not making a firm pronouncement, vis-à-vis, either the alleged weapon of offence, or the clothes of the accused or of the victim, carrying thereon their respective blood stains, nor hence the blood stains hence bearing any compatibility, vis-à-vis, their respective blood groups. 12. As a corollary, the effect, of, lack of any firm pronouncement, qua the blood stains, occurring upon the items recovered, under, Ext. PW1/B, Ext. PW1/D, Ext. PW1/F, and, Ext. PW5/A, and, Ext. PW5/C, and as stood sent for analyses, to the FSL concerned, qua theirs hence, tallying with the blood groups, respectively, of the victim, and, of the accused, (i) renders hence the propagation of the prosecution, that with all the items recovered, under the aforesaid cogently proven memos, rather constituting potent incriminatory piece(s), of, evidence against the accused, and erosive effects, if any, of the depositions, of PW-1 and PW-2, rather therethrough being both enfeebled, and also emaciated, to, obviously suffer dilution . 13. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended with much vigor before this Court, that with Ext. PW5/B and, Ext. PW5/C, respectively embodying therein, the, disclosure statement(s), made by the accused, and, the apt recoveries, made therethrough, of, the bag, (a) wherewithin the accused was keeping a knife, allegedly used by him, in the relevant assault, and, with both the memos, being cogently proven, (b) thereupon, also the afore memos, holding overriding effect, vis-à-vis, all the afore-referred inferences, as stand drawn, by this Court. However, the afore submission, is, both frail, and weak, as neither PW-1 nor PW-2, has rendered any testification, vis-à-vis, their sighting the accused, carrying a bag, and, further with the knife allegedly used by the accused, carrying thereon, the purported blood stains, of the victim(s), rather not being pronounced by the FSL concerned, to bear any compatibility, vis-à-vis, the blood group of the victim, ( c) besides when, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court has dis-credited, the purported ocular testification(s), rendered by PW-1, and by PW-2, vis-à-vis, the participation of the accused, (d) thereupon with both rendering rather incredible ocular versions, qua, the accused, dropping, at the site, of, occurrence, darat, Ext. P-1, hence therefrom, an inference, is engendered qua it militating against logic qua assumingly, upon, the accused dropping Ext. P-1, at the relevant site, his rather, striving to hide or camaflouge the bag Ext. P-1 wherewithin he kept Ext. P-1, wherefrom it is to be concluded qua both, the afore memos, rather being fictitiously drawn. 14. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner and the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, suffers, from a perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. 15. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted. Case property be destroyed after the expiry of the period of limitation, for filing an appeal. Fine amount, if deposited by the accused, be forthwith refunded to him. Personal and surety bond(s) be forthwith discharged. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.