JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal stands directed against, the judgment rendered, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., upon, Sessions Trial No. No.08-NL/07 of 2017/11, where through, vis- -vis, charges drawn under Sections 307, 341, 506, read with Section 34, of, IPC, he pronounced an order of acquittal, upon, the accused. 2. Fir, embodied in Ext. PW14/A, became recorded, at the instance, of, a purported eye witness, to, the relevant occurrence, inasmuch as, one Chander Shekhar, who therein, has, made a narration, qua on 13.8.2010 at about 7 p.m., upon his arriving, in village Gagguwal, thereat his sighting accused Karnail Singh, and, his son Jaggi, to hold swords in their hands, and, both chasing the victim/injured one Ram Pal, (i) and, despite his interception, another accused, also arriving at the site of occurrence, with a mattock in his hand,(ii) and also therein makes narration(s), vis- -vis, his sighting all the afore(s), to deliver beating(s), with user(s) thereof, upon, the afore Ram Pal. He has also echoed therein, vis- -vis, the accused threatening the victim/injured Ram pal, and, thereafter, he makes echoing(s) therein, vis- -vis, one Karan, and, one Nirmal, lifting Ram Pal, and that the latter being taken, on the motorcycle of Karan and Nirmal, to, Government Hospital, Nalagarh, and, wherefrom, he became referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The injuries, enumerated, in, the apposite MLC, as, prepared by the Doctor concerned, upon the victim being subjected, to medical examination, makes the hereinafter extracted unfoldment(s): "(1) Sharp wound on clavicular region size 1.5 cmx 0.5cm skin deep. (2) Sharp wound on left forearm 3 cm below elbow joint size 3 cmx5 cm x skin deep; (3) Sharp wound on left wrist on inner side size 3.5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm; (4) Sharp wound left wrist on outer side size 3 cm x 5 x 5 cm with fracture underline bone. (5) Sharp wound on left lateral abdomen size 1.5 cm x5 x skin deep. (6) Sharp wound on right inguinal region size 1 cmx5 x 5 cm (7) Abrasion on chest and left scapular region. The afore unfoldment(s), are, borne in Ext. PW1/B, exhibit whereof became proven by PW-1, during the course, of, his stepping into the witness box. (5) Sharp wound on left lateral abdomen size 1.5 cm x5 x skin deep. (6) Sharp wound on right inguinal region size 1 cmx5 x 5 cm (7) Abrasion on chest and left scapular region. The afore unfoldment(s), are, borne in Ext. PW1/B, exhibit whereof became proven by PW-1, during the course, of, his stepping into the witness box. Moreover, PW-1, during the course, of, his, examination-in-chief, has, made unequivocal voicing(s) therein, vis- -vis, injury No. 7, hence noticed by him, to be occurring on the body of one Ram Pal, being causable with weapon(s), of, offence, inasmuch as mattock, Ext. P-1 and by stick Ext. P-2, and, as became shown to him in Court, after theirs becoming retrieved, from, the sealed parcel. Even though, the recovery(s), of weapon(s), of, offence, respectively, embodied in Ext. P-1 (Fawra) and Ext. P-2 (stick), became effectuated through memo, borne in Ext. PW 2/C, at the instance of accused Gurdeep Singh, and recover(ies), of, sword(s), embodied in Ext. P-3 and Ext. P-4, became effectuated, through, memo, Ext. PW2/G, at the instance of accused Karnail Singh, and, though, preceding therewith(s), an apt disclosure statement(s), of, accused karnail Singh, also became recorded, disclosure statement whereof, is, embodied in Ext. PW2/D. Even though dehors, the, witnesses, to, the afore drawn memo(s), reneging from their previously recorded statements in writing, yet, upon, each becoming cross-examined, theirs not denying their signatures thereon, (i) thereupon, through the statutory estoppel engrafted, in, Section 91 and 92, of, the Indian Evidence Act, against their orally deposing in variance, to, the recorded recitals, borne therein, they rather prove the recorded recitals, occurring therein, (ii) nonetheless, dehors PW-1, also hence proving the cause, of, injuries, occurring on the body, of, the victim/injured, inasmuch as, theirs being ascribable, to the weapon(s), of, offences, recovered through the afore memo(s), becomes, rather, of, no evidentiary worth, or hence the drawing, of, recovery memo(s), are, construable, to, be contrived and engineered, rather by the Investigating Officer. The reasons, for, making, the afore conclusion, becomes embedded in (a) PW-3, though makes a narration, in his deposition, carrying therein, voicing(s), hence, imputing an inculpatory role, to, the accused, and, though the afore made voicing(s), in his examination-in-chief, are, also bereft, of, any stain, of, his making contradictions, rather therefrom(s), during the course, of, his cross-examination. The reasons, for, making, the afore conclusion, becomes embedded in (a) PW-3, though makes a narration, in his deposition, carrying therein, voicing(s), hence, imputing an inculpatory role, to, the accused, and, though the afore made voicing(s), in his examination-in-chief, are, also bereft, of, any stain, of, his making contradictions, rather therefrom(s), during the course, of, his cross-examination. (b) However, any reliance(s) thereupon(s), or upon the deposition, of, PW-3, are, inapt, as, it became enjoined upon, the prosecution, to, despite the victim, not citing PW-3, as an ocular witness to the occurrence, and, rather his citing one Jaspal, and, one Hazara Singh, to be the ocular witnesses to the occurrence, to hence cite, both the afore, as PWs' ( c) whereas, both the afore eye witnesses, to, the occurrence becoming, neither cited as witnesses, nor theirs being led into the witness box, hence, by the prosecution, whereupon the dependence, upon, all the afore(s), by the prosecution, is, reiteratedly legally frail. Moreover, the afore exculpatory inference, made by this Court, vis- -vis, the accused, does, also derive immense strength, from, Ext. D-X, exhibit whereof, embodies a statement, of, the injured witness, as recorded before the Juvenile Justice Board, (d) wherein, in his examinationin-chief, he has named one Nirmal, and, one Raval, to be the ocular witnesses, to the occurrence, both, of, whom are persons, visibly different from one Jaspal Singh, and, Hazara, who rather became voiced by the afore Ram Pal, during the course, of, his recording, his deposition, before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, to be the ocular witness to the occurrence, (b) thereupon, the afore interse contradiction, in two statement(s), made by injured witness, Ram Pal, inasmuch as the one made before the Juvenile Justice Board, and, the other made subsequent thereto, hence before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, does, fully erode(s) the credibility, of, the injured witness to the occurrence, besides, also the, credibility, of, PW3, and appertaining to the genesis, of, the occurrence, and, wherein they attribute an incriminatory role, to, the accused. 3. 3. Be that as it may, the afore conclusion(s), coax(es) this Court, to make a befitting concomitant inference, qua PW-4, one Chander Shekhar, neither being an ocular witness to the occurrence, nor obviously, his previously recorded statement(s), in writing, and, of, the victim, being amenable for any credence, nor also any deposition(s), hence made with interse corroboration thereto(s), by both, nor any corroboration, meted, vis- vis, testification(s), of, the injured victim, through, the, testification, of, PW-3, rather holds any evidentiary weight or vigor. Consequently, therethrough, the genesis, of, the prosecution case, becomes unhinged, and, also the validity, if any, of, the recovered weapon(s), of, offences, as made through proven recovery memo(s), becomes completely belied, and besides the deposition, of PW-1, who voices therein the cause, of, injuries, to be a sequel, of, users, upon the body, of, the victim/injured, the, weapons', of, offence, hence shown to him, during the course, of, his examination-in-chief, also holds no veracity, (a) conspicuously with there being rife interse contradiction interse medical, and, ocular evidence, qua the occurrence, and, an untrustworthy ocular account, blunting effect(s), if any, of, medical evidence. 4. 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 trial Court, does not suffer, from any gross perversity or absurdity of any mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of evidence on record. 5. 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.