JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through a judgment, drawn on 07.3.2019, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, upon Sessions Case No. 18 of 2017, in respect of the charges drawn against the accused under Sections 307, 323, 506, 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC, he proceeded to convict the accused. Moreover, vide a separate sentencing order, drawn on 13.3.2019, the learned trial Court, proceeded to impose the hereinafter extracted sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, also sentences of fine, upon the convictaccused. Sr. No. Offence under Section Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine 1. 307/34IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Rs. 5,000/- Further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. 323/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Rs. 1,000/- Further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. 3. 452/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years. Rs. 1,000/- Further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 4. 506 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years Rs. 1,000/- Further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The convicts become aggrieved therefrom, and, through their respectively constituting Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. CRA-S-1571-2019, and, CRA-S-1681-2019, have strived to seek annulment(s) of the above drawn verdict of conviction, and, also of consequent therewith sentence(s), as became imposed upon them, thereupon, both the criminal appeals are amenable for a common verdict, being made thereons. 3. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes encapsulated in FIR No. 916 of 17.10.2016, lodged at Police Station Sadar, Hisar, and, to which Ex. P-28 is assigned. The appeal FIR is lodged at the instance of one Randhir. The appeal FIR narrates, that on 22.10.2016, a VT from control room, Hisar about the admission of complainant in Aadhar Hospital, Hisar was received, upon which HC Surender went to concerned hospital, and, collected ruqa and MLR but the injured was declared unfit to make the statement. The condition of the injured remained same till 16.10.2016. On 17.10.2016, when the injured was declared fit by the concerned doctor then he got recorded his statement to the police that he is a labourer by occupation and on 11.10.2016, at about 11.30 P.M., when he was sleeping inside his plot then 10/12 persons after entering the plot abused him and started beating him with lathis and dandas. When he raised noise then assailants went away and in those assailants one person was Kalia son of Dharampal and names of other persons he does not know. When he raised noise then assailants went away and in those assailants one person was Kalia son of Dharampal and names of other persons he does not know. The assailants had come to his plot on the motor cycles. In the morning his wife, younger brother and son admitted him in the hospital. Upon his statement, formal FIR under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 506 IPC was registered. During investigation injury No. 4 on the person of injured was declared dangerous to life whereupon offence under Section 307 IPC was added. In the further investigation, person named by the complainant was arrested, and, he suffered disclosure statement, whereupon offence under Section 147, 149 IPC were deleted, and, Section 34 IPC was added. 4. After the lodging of the appeal FIR, the police machinery became galvanized, and, after the investigating officer concerned, causing the arrest of the accused concerned, and, subsequently his completing the investigations into the petition FIR, he proceeded to institute a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Committal Court. 5. The Committal Court, given the offences, as carried in the appeal FIR, being exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, proceeded to, through a committal order, drawn on 29.3.2017, hence commit the accused to face trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, on receiving the appeal FIR, after it becoming committed to him, through the order (supra), drawn by the learned Committal Court concerned, proceeded to draw charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 452, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, though put the charges to the accused, but they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial. Consequently, he entered, upon trial of the charges qua FIR (supra), drawn against the accused, and, after completion of recording of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, he also drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused claimed false implication, and, pleaded innocence. Though, each of the accused claimed the granting of leave to them, for leading defence evidence, but the above granted leave never became availed by each of them. Therefore, as above stated, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, drew the above verdict of conviction, and, also drew the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), against the accused. 8. Though, each of the accused claimed the granting of leave to them, for leading defence evidence, but the above granted leave never became availed by each of them. Therefore, as above stated, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, drew the above verdict of conviction, and, also drew the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), against the accused. 8. The learned counsels for the convicts-appellants, have very vehemently argued before this Court, that the above drawn verdict of conviction, and, also the consequent therewith sentence(s), as became imposed upon the convicts, do suffer, from the vice of gross misappreciation of evidence on record. 9. On the contrary, the learned State counsel, has also vigorously argued before this Court, that the above drawn verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence(s), as became imposed upon the convicts, by the learned convicting Court, do not merit any interference, being made by this Court. 10. The prime prosecution witness is PW-4, as he is the ocular witness to the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he made bespeakings, which are completely in concurrence with the genesis of the prosecution case, as, becomes echoed in the appeal FIR, and, to which Ex. P-28 is assigned. However, though in his examination-in-chief, he has echoed that at the crime site, where the relevant assault occurred, he was able to recognize only convict Kalia, and, has also echoed therein, that he could not recognize the other co-accused, as they were not earlier known to him. Furthermore, in his examination-in-chief, he also deposed that when he was in the hospital, then he was apprised that accused Baljit, and, Adesh were also involved in the relevant assault. Consequently, he proceeded to, in Court, identify all the accused, who were obviously present there. 11. However, the above deposition(s), in his examination-in-chief, does not per se garner any probative vigour, unless a reading of his crossexamination unfolds, that he has thereins neither contradicted his deposition(s), as carried in his examination-in-chief, and/nor, he has thereins made stark/gross embellishments, or improvements, upon his previously made statement in writing. 12. In other words, only in the face of the above stains rather not emanating, on a wholesome reading of his testifications, as comprised both in his examination-in-chief, and, in his cross-examination, thereupon, this Court would be led to impute the completest sanctity to his deposition(s). 13. 12. In other words, only in the face of the above stains rather not emanating, on a wholesome reading of his testifications, as comprised both in his examination-in-chief, and, in his cross-examination, thereupon, this Court would be led to impute the completest sanctity to his deposition(s). 13. Therefore, in the above endeavour, this Court, has very minutely made a thorough, and, completest, besides a wholesome analysis, of his testification, as becomes embodied, both in his examination-in-chief, and, in his cross-examination. The resulting effect thereof, is that though, in his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that apart from Kalia, he could not recognize the other co-accused, who were present at the crime site, and, who along with the appellant Amit @ Kalia also made an assault, upon his person, but as above stated, he also stated, that subsequently rather he became apprised in the hospital, that co-accused Baljit, and, Adesh were also, involved in the relevant assault, as made upon his person, at the crime site. 14. Ex facie, the above singular ocular witness to the occurrence, who is also the injured victim, was required to give an explanation, not only with respect to the person, who intimated him, qua besides Kalia Jaat, who was previously known to him, and, whom he identified to be available at the crime site, that also co-accused Baljit, and, Adesh rather were also present there. However, in his examination-in-chief, he has made no echoings with respect to the said person, nor in his cross-examination, he echoed about the identity of person, who revealed the above factum to him. In consequence, the above echoings, as made in his examination-in-chief, become per se hearsay evidence, and, garner no probative vigour. 15. Irrespective of the above, both co-accused Baljit, and, Aashish were identified, for the first time in Court, by the victim. Though the identification of the accused in Court by the injured victim, who is the ocular witness to the occurrence, would held immense evidentiary tenacity, but only subject to prior thereto, in a valid test identification parade, as became conducted by the investigating officer concerned, rather thereins the victim/complainant injured, rather identifying the above accused, to be also the persons, who were available at the crime site along with Kalia Jaat. Therefore, for ensuring that the apposite test identification parade, becoming amenable for being construed to be validly conducted or, to be validly held, it became incumbent, upon the injured victim, who stepped into the witness box, as PW-4, rather to in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. P28, is assigned, narrate thereins the key characteristic features, and, descriptions of the above co-accused, but obviously no such descriptions were made in Ex. P-28, whereas, for a identification parade, if any, as, held during the course of the investigations, by the investigating officer concerned, and, whereins the victim injured, did purportedly identify, the above co-accused, to be the accomplices of Kalia Jaat, rather to hold formidable probative vigour, did enjoin that prior thereto, the above descriptions being made, in the FIR. 16. However, in the instant case, even no identification parade became held by the investigating officer concerned, during the course of his conducting investigations, into the appeal FIR, and, nor obviously thereins the injured victim hence identified the above co-accused to be accomplices of Kalia Jaat, in the assault, as became made, upon his person, at the crime site. As a sequel, the above wants rather renders, the identification only in Court, by the injured victim, of the above co-accused, to be extremely fragile. 17. Be that as it may, the inculpation, as drawn against Kalia Jaat, is yet not ridden with any infirmity, of any intra se contradictions occurring intra se the examination-in-chief, and, the cross-examination of PW-1 nor his testification is rife with any gross embellishments or improvements qua his previously made statement, in writing. Therefore, the verdict of conviction, as drawn against Kalia Jaat, does prima facie, remain alive or intact, and, prima facie may not require its being disturbed. Fortification to the above inference becomes garnered from the factum that, during the course of PW-4 becoming subjected to cross-examination, a suggestion being meted to him, by the learned defence counsel, that except Kalia Jaat, he was not known to any of the other co-accused. The effect of the above suggestion, being meted by the learned defence counsel, during the course of cross-examination of PW-4, and, with an affirmative answer being meted thereto by PW-4, renders open a conclusion that the defence acquiesces to the guilt of the accused, qua the relevant drawn charges against him. 18. The effect of the above suggestion, being meted by the learned defence counsel, during the course of cross-examination of PW-4, and, with an affirmative answer being meted thereto by PW-4, renders open a conclusion that the defence acquiesces to the guilt of the accused, qua the relevant drawn charges against him. 18. The effect of the above acquiescence is that, though the crime incident occurred on 12.10.2016, but yet it becoming reported on 17.10.2016, hence belatedly since the occurrence happening at the crime site, also not casting any stain qua the genesis of the prosecution story, as carried thereins, rather being an afterthought or being premeditated. 19. The doctor, who drew the MLR qua the injured/victim, upon his stepping into the witness box, as PW-9, has proved the apposite MLR, and, to which Ex.P-14 became assigned. Therefore, with PW-9, who drew Ex.P-14, proving the factum of his drawing it, under his hands, and, signatures, and, in his examination-in-chief, his testifying qua his echoing in Ex. P-17, that injury No. 4 is dangerous to life, does corroborate, the testification, as rendered by the victim-injured/ocular witness, to the occurrence, inasmuch as it pertaining to the incriminatory participation of Kalia Jaat, in the relevant assault, but not with respect to the incriminatory participation thereins of the other co-accused. 20. Though, PW-4 was subjected to cross-examination, and, thereins, he accepted the suggestion as became meted to him, by the learned defence counsel, that injury Nos. 1 to 3, and, 5 are simple in nature, but yet he also accepted the suggestion, that, upon injury No. 4, which in his examination-in-chief, he declared to be dangerous to life, there was no external marks of injuries, and, that too despite his further admitting that there is a possibility of external injury marks, occurring on the relevant examined portion of the body of the injured, especially if the injuries are caused through the user thereons of lathis, and, rods. However, though on the basis of the above made statement, by PW-4, in his cross-examination, the learned defence counsel for the appellant(s) concerned, argues that the opinion, as carried in Annexure P-17, disclosing that injury No. 4, is dangerous to life, is hence infirm. 21. However, though on the basis of the above made statement, by PW-4, in his cross-examination, the learned defence counsel for the appellant(s) concerned, argues that the opinion, as carried in Annexure P-17, disclosing that injury No. 4, is dangerous to life, is hence infirm. 21. However, the above made contention is rejected, as the rule qua appreciation of evidence, especially when may be interse contradictions emerge inter se the apposite ocular account, and, medical account, is that, thereupons, rather credence is to be assigned to the ocular account qua the occurrence, and, not qua the medical account qua the occurrence. Bearing in mind the above rule, the above inter se contradictions inter se medical account, and, the ocular account, does leverage this Court, to draw a conclusion, that the deposition of the injured victim/complainant PW-4, hence assigning an incriminatory role in the crime incident, qua Kalia Jaat, does not at all become overwhelmed, by any prima facie contrary thereto echoing(s) rather being made by PW-4 qua injury No. 4, though being declared to be dangerous to life, yet it requiring the existence of external injury marks, on the injured examined portion of the victim, especially when thereons lathis, and, iron rod blows were struck, and, whereons the above external injury marks may be absent. Conspicuously also the above acquiescings of his participation in the relevant assault rather estop him to rear the above contention. 22. PW-5 though, has supported the prosecution case, but his meteing corroboration to the genesis of the prosecution case, is completely unworthwhile, as he is a hearsay witness. 23. PW-6 has deposed that in pursuance to his disclosure statement, co-accused Ashish got demarcated the site of occurrence, and, in respect thereof, a memo Ex. P-6, became drawn by the investigating officer concerned, and, that P-6 became signatured by the accused, and, that it became attested by him, as a witness thereto. However, the factum of coaccused Ashish ensuring the demarcation of the site of occurrence, and, also in respect thereof a memo Ex. P-6, became drawn by the investigating officer concerned, and, that P-6 became signatured by the accused, and, that it became attested by him, as a witness thereto. However, the factum of coaccused Ashish ensuring the demarcation of the site of occurrence, and, also in respect thereof a memo Ex. P-6 becoming drawn, and, thereons his undenied signatrues also existing, do not yet, make him amenable for inculpation, as the investigating officer concerned, while stepping into the witness box, has in his cross-examination accepted the suggestion, as became meted then, to him, by the learned defence counsel, that he was acquainted with the crime site, even before he was led thereupto rather by co-accused Amit. In consequence, when even the investigating officer concerned, prior to his being led to the crime site, by accused Amit, held knowledge about the crime incident, taking place there, thereupon, his being subsequently led thereupto by co-accused Amit, is but, reiteratedely completely inconsequential. 24. Even otherwise, and, apart from the above conclusion, sparked from the factum of the first time identification in Court, of co-accused Amit Kalia, being completely un-worthwhile, the further factum, that the investigating officer concerned, in his examination-in-chief, though has spoken, about the factum of Amit @ Kalia, during the course of his making custodial interrogation, upon him, his making a disclosure statement, in consequence whereof, he ensured the recovery of a wooden danda, which was taken into possession vide Ex. P-9, but significantly he has not spoken therein about the factum, that in the disclosure statement, as, made before him, by co-accused Amit @ Kalia, his also revealing thereins, about the incriminatory participation in the relevant assault, even of co-accused Ashish Kumar, and, Baljit. Therefore, the impact of the above conclusion, about the first time identification in Court, of co-accused Baljit and Ashish, being infirm, does for reasons (supra) acquire force, and, impetus. 25. PW-10 in his examination-in-chief, has also deposed that during the course of his subjecting co-accused Baljit to custodial interrogation, his making a disclosure statement Ex. P-11, and in pursuance thereof, his getting recovered the crime motor cycle, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P-12. However, yet the recovery in pursuance to Ex. P-11, of the crime motor cycle, and, as made through memo Ex. P-11, and in pursuance thereof, his getting recovered the crime motor cycle, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P-12. However, yet the recovery in pursuance to Ex. P-11, of the crime motor cycle, and, as made through memo Ex. P-12, does not connect co-accused Baljit, in the relevant assault, and, the reasons for making the above conclusion, necessarily become founded, upon the factum qua during the course of the custodial interrogation of Amit @ Kalia, the investigating officer concerned, not revealing in his examinationin-chief, that he had made any disclosures, about the incriminatory participations along with him, in the relevant assault, by the above co- accused. 26. Though, in the report of the FSL concerned, whereto became sent danda Ex. P-8, and, as became recovered at the instance of co-accused Amit, hence through a recovery memo Ex. P-9, rather no opinion occurring qua any blood stains belonging to the blood group of the injured-victim becoming carried thereons. However, the above factum, does not yet leverage any conclusion that, either the untainted ocular account, qua the above occurrence, becomes benumbed nor also inches to any conclusion that Ex. P-8, which became recovered through Ex.P-9, at the instance of coaccused Amit @ Kalia, being a tainted recovery, and, nor it can be concluded to become unreleated to its user by co-accused Amit @ Kalia, as the above, has not denied the existence of his valid signatures, either on Ex. P-9, which embodies the disclosure statement of Amit @ Kalia, in pursuance whereof, danda Ex. P-8, became recovered, through memo comprised in Ex. P-9, besides nor when even his signatures on the recovery memo, to which Ex. P-9 is assigned, remain undenied. Moreover, when also the marginal witness thereto, has unerodingly supported the factum qua the veracity of drawings of both Ex. P-9, and, Ex. P-11, thereupon, also the effect of the above argument becomes rendered completely fragile. 27. Consequently, the appeal filed by Amit Kumar @ Kalia, bearing No. CRA-S-1681-2019, is dismissed. The impugned verdict of conviction, as recorded against him, by the learned trial Court concerned, is maintained, and, affirmed, but bearing in mind the period spent by him in custody, the consequent therewith sentence of imprisonment, imposed upon him, is modified, to the term already undergone in prison by him. However, the sentence of fine, if any, imposed, upon him shall remain undisturbed. 28. However, the sentence of fine, if any, imposed, upon him shall remain undisturbed. 28. Insofar as appeal filed by appellants Ashish Kumar, and, Baljit, bearing No. CRA-S-1571-2019, is allowed. The impugned judgment convicting, and, sentencing the appellants (supra), is quashed, and, set aside. Appellants Ashish Kumar, and, Baljit are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The fine amount, if any, deposited by them be, in accordance with law, released to them. The personal, and, surety bonds of the accused (supra) shall stand forthwith cancelled, and, discharged. The case property be dealt with, in accordance with law, after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of an appeal. The appellants, if in custody, and, if not required in any other case, be forthwith set at liberty. Release warrants be prepared accordingly qua all, but qua accused Amit Kumar alias Kalia, be prepared only subject to his depositing the fine amount, if any, as becomes imposed upon him. 29. Records be sent down forthwith.