JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: State has filed this appeal against the Class, Court No. II , Amb, District Una, H.P. in case No. 111/1988. By means of impugned judgment, the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under section 26 of the Indian Forest Act and section 379 of the Indian Penal Code as contained against them in F.I.R. No.134 of 1987 dated 19-12-1987 at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. 2. According to the prosecution Forest Guard Mohinder Singh along-with a labourer of the department, namely, Darshan Lal were on patrol duty on 19-12-1987 at about 5-30 P.M. in Jungle R-l Banjal C34 TeekaGagret. At such point of time both of them are stated to have seen the respondents carrying two logs or khair trees. On enquiry having been made from the respondents regarding these two khair logs, both of them are stated to have thrown away the said logs and fled away from the spot. On the next day, i.e. 20- 12-1987 matter was reported to the Deputy Ranger Mohinder Singh by PW-6 Mohinder Singh Forest Guard. In order to find the correct position, Deputy Ranger accompanied by Mohinder Singh Forest Guard and Darshan Lal, went to the forest in question and checked it. During the course of such investigation, it was found that 32 logs were found hidden nearby a drain, as per the prosecution case. In these circumstances vide complaint Ex. PA, addressed by Divisional Forest Officer, Bharwain Division to Station House Officer, Amb intimation was sent about the commission of the offence and which resulted in investigation of the case after the case had been registered. , 3. During the course of investigation the respondents were taken into custody as persons being responsible for the aforesaid illicit felling of Khair trees. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the respondents in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amb, who was satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for proceeding against the respondents, consequently a charge was framed under section 379 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the respondents with a common intention of each other had illicitly cut and removed 18 trees of Khair of different sizes from the Jungle in question situate in Tikka Gagret without any valid permit/permission from the forest department. It was further alleged in the charge sheet that since the respondents had illicitly cut 18 trees of Khair from the aforementioned Jungle in question at Tikka Gagret which is a reserve forest and that too without any valid permission/permit, they were also liable to be charged for having committed offence under section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. To this charge, the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. . 4. After conclusion of trial and recording the statements of respondents under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, both the respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court, hence this appeal. 5. The learned Assistant Advocate General appearing in support of this appeal has urged that the trial Court has fallen into error while acquitting the respondents by means of impugned judgment. According to the learned Assistant Advocate General Statement of PW-6 Mohinder Singh Forest Guard is enough to convict and sentence the respondents and by referring to the statement of this PW coupled with the statements of other witnesses as well as documentary evidence, learned Assistant Advocate General urged that the appeal is liable to be allowed and consequently the respondents convicted. On the other hand, Shri Naresh Thakur, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that in the face of evidence on record, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the trial court. In fact, the material witnesses in this case were two forest officials viz. PW-4 Darshan Lal a daily wage labourer in the forest department and PW-6 Mohinder Singh Forest Guard, both of whom are stated to have seen the respondents carrying two logs of Khair, when on enquiry the latter are alleged to have fled away from the forest in question. 6. At the very out-set it may be appropriate to point out that after PWs 4 and 6 had seen the respondents carrying Khair logs and on being questioned having fled from the site in question, in the ordinary course of things it was expected that both of them would give a chase or atleast an attempt would be made by both of them to apprehend the respondents. Instead of acting with due diligence and after having allowed the respondents to flee away from the spot, they chose to report to the Deputy Ranger, that too on the next day. Instead of acting with due diligence and after having allowed the respondents to flee away from the spot, they chose to report to the Deputy Ranger, that too on the next day. This conduct on the part of both PW-4 and PW-6 is highly objectionable and reprehensible. Prima facie this Court is satisfied that both of them did not act in accordance with law much less discharge their official duty in proper and just manner. Besides this, there is nothing on record to show as to from how much distance the respondents had been seen by both these PWs, so both of them having been connected with the commission of alleged offence is not free from doubt as also both these PWs having seen two persons who were carrying: the logs were the respondents and none else. This further goes to show the prosecution has failed to connect the respondent with the commission of the offence. PW-4 in his cross examination by the Public Prosecutor after he was declared hostile had stated that he had given the statement to save the accused at their instance but in the next breath has gone on record to say that he was scared of Mohinder Singh and other officials since he had to get confirmed in the forest department where he admits himself to be employed. PW-4 was declared hostile. It leads to two things, either his initial statement was not correctly recorded by the police or he had not seen the occurrence at all along with PW-6 in either situation his having not supported the case and further nothing having come out of his cross examination by the Public Prosecutor dislodges the statement of PW-6 and makes his credibility doubtful. The officers concerned should have examined the matter in the light of the aforesaid impression on the part 5 of these PWs 4 & 6 after having seen the respondents firstly carrying two logs and thereafter having fled away when questioned, why both these PWs did not act promptly in the matter puts a question mark on their conduct as forest officials whose job is to protect the forest concerned where PW-6 was posted. 7. 7. Another factor of this case is that on the day next to 19-12-1987 after receipt of intimation of respondents having been found carrying two logs of Khair wood and having fled away from the seen of occurrence after they were questioned about permission/permit regarding two logs, next day in the forest concerned 32 logs of Khair wood were found having been hidden in a drain and 18 trees of Khair were found to have been illicitly felled. In case the forest beat guard/other concerned forest officials were properly patrolling the forest in question with due diligence, the possibility of 18 Khair trees having been illicitly felled was not there. Needless to point out that 18 trees could not be cut over-night nor would the illicitly felled Khair wood (32 logs in the present case) could be hidden in a drain by the persons who had converted the illicitly felled khair trees into logs. This further leads to the consequence that the officials concerned were not patrolling the forest regularly which clearly leads to dereliction of duty on the part of all concerned to protect the forest in question. In seems that instead of looking to this aspect of the case the forest officials were satisfied after having lodged the complaint with the Station House Officer, Police Station Amb. 8. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect much less identify the respondents being the persons guilty of having been found to be carrying two Khair logs as claimed by P Ws 4 and 6. Similarly, the prosecution has also miserably failed to prove on record by any evidence worth the name that it is the respondents alone and none else who are guilty of illicitly felling 18 Khair trees from the forest in question. That being so it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the trial court call for any interference. An appraisal of the entire matter shows that the view taken by the trial court while acquitting the respondents is one of the two possible views and nothing could be pointed out by Shri Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General to suggest that on appreciation of Prosecution evidence in this case there was only one and irresistible view pointing towards the guilt of the respondents. Needless to point out that the distance of might have and must have has to be covered by the prosecution for the purpose of bringing home the guilt against an accused in a criminal case. The prosecution has miserably failed to cover this distance in the present case and on this count also no fault can be found with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. 9. No other point has been urged in support of this appeal. 10. From whatever angle case of the prosecution may be examined, there is no merit in this case and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.