JUDGEMENT Arun Kumar. Goel, J. - 1. Appellant after having been found guilty for having committed offence under Section 380 IPS was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has challenged his conviction and sentence in the present appeal. 2. Appellant was tried for having allegedly committed offences under Sections 380, 436 and 201 IPS by the learned Sections Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 28/2000. He has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 436 and 201 IPS as aforesaid. 3. As per prosecution case appellant was working as peon/Messenger in the Himachal Gramin Bank at its Barot branch where he was transferred vide order dated 17.4.1999 (Ext.PL). A fire had broken out on the nigh intervening 18th and 19th July 2000 at Barot Bazar resulting in bazar being reduced to ashes. Number of shops and residences were burnt. In one of such building, Himachal Gramin Bank was also housed. Information of this fire was given by PW-3 Tialk Raj to PW-1 Shri S.P. Ralta who was working as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jogindernagar. On receipt of this information, S.D.M. Passed on the same to S.I. Prakash Chand (PW-20), S.H.O. police Station, Jogindernagar. Thereafter both of them reached the spot at Barot in the early hours of morning. Meanwhile fire tenders had also reached from Palampur and Mandi. Thus, the fire was extinguished with the help of local people as well fire tenders. 4. On receipt of information, it was noted in the daily diary vide Ext. PA and on its basis F.I.R. Ext. PP was recorded by Nand Lai (pw-17) at the Police Station. 5. Safe of the Himachal Gramin bank was lying at the spot in the ashes of the building, but was intact. This safe could only be opened with two keys one being with the Branch Manager, Dan Singh (pw-4) and the other with the Cashier, Bachittar Singh (pw-6). It is admitted case of the prosecution as also clearly established from the statements of Dan Singh (pw-4) and Bachittar Singh (pw-6) that unless both the keys were applied to the safe, it could not have been opened. 6. It is admitted case of the prosecution as also clearly established from the statements of Dan Singh (pw-4) and Bachittar Singh (pw-6) that unless both the keys were applied to the safe, it could not have been opened. 6. Since Dan Singh was to go on a weeks training to Lucknow on 18.4.1999, therefore, both the keys i.e. one of the Manager and the other of the Cashier were with Bachittar Singh. Dan Singh could not catch the bus at the bus stop and asked the appellant to send Bachittar Singh so that on his scooter pw-4 could be dropped at a point from where he could board the bus. Bachittar Singh did give him the lift and he was able to catch the bus at Tikken. 7. Safe of the bank was opened on 21.8.1999 when second set of the keys was requisitioned from Punjab National Bank, Tikken where those were kept in safe custody in a sealed cover. Thereafter the safe was opened and it was found that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was short in cash. PW-2 Vipin Sehgal, General Manager of the bank stated that Bachittar Singh informed him (the witness) regarding a sum of Rs. 1,66,509.20 having been kept in safe. This was the closing cash and on opening the safe a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was found deficient. The amount of closing cash as per prosecution case was disclosed by the Cashier PW-6 not only to PW-2 but also to PW-4 Dan Singh as well as PW-5. 8. Prosecution evidence further shows that authentic proof regarding what was the-cash is the cash reserve book which PW-6 claims to have kept in the safe before going to drop PW-4 Dan Singh on his scooter where he wanted to catch the bus. Besides this, on every Friday, information was required to be sent to the Head Office at Mandi about the cash in hand position and other details. It may be noted here that 18.8.1999 was also a Friday. 9. In the memo Ext. PF prepared after the safe was opened neither there was any mention of statement regarding cash position nor its having been sent to Head Office at Mandi, Besides this Cash Reserve Register was also not found in the safe as is clear from Ext. PF. 10. Admittedly there is no direct evidence of theft having been committed by the appellant. PF prepared after the safe was opened neither there was any mention of statement regarding cash position nor its having been sent to Head Office at Mandi, Besides this Cash Reserve Register was also not found in the safe as is clear from Ext. PF. 10. Admittedly there is no direct evidence of theft having been committed by the appellant. The entire case of the prosecution is based as well as hinges on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it was necessary for the prosecution to have completed all the links in the chain of circumstances so as to complete it. In case any of the links was missing, its benefit obviously has to go to the appellant otherwise the appeal is to be dismissed. 11. For the purpose of present appeal, statements PW-2, Vipin Sehgal, General Manager of Himachal Gramin Bank, Mandi PW-4, Dan Singh Manager, Himachal Gramin Bank, Barot, PW-5 Vinod Sharma, Area manager, PW-6 Bachittar Singh, Cashier, PW-7 Om Prakash Bakashi, PW-8 Vijay Kumar, Shop Keeper, PW-10 Diwan Chand, and PW-20,S.I.S.H.O. Om Prakash are material and relevant. Statements of these witnesses are being taken note of to ascertain whether all the links in the chain are complete and also whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt against the appellant. 12. PW-2 stated that on 19.8.2000 at about 7.70 AM. He learnt on receipt of telephone from I.K. Arora, Area Manager, Mandi and V.K. Sharma, Area Manager, Baijnath that the building of the bank at Barot had been gutted in the fire. They proceeded to the spot and found that the bank building had been reduced to ashes besides other buildings. He met PWs 4 and 6 who were posted as Cashier and Manager, respectively at Barot, witness learnt that Dan Singh was relieved for joining training at Lucknow. Thus, both the keys of the safe i.e. of the Manager as well as of cashier were with the Cashier (PW-6). One he had kept at his home and the other was not traceable. As such witness asked PW-4 to get the duplicate keys from Punjab National Bank, Tikken and then inspect the cash in the safe. All these officials of the bank have stated in their statements that PW-6 Bachittar Singh informed the cash in the sum of Rs. 1,66,509.20 having been kept in the safe as being the closing cash. As such witness asked PW-4 to get the duplicate keys from Punjab National Bank, Tikken and then inspect the cash in the safe. All these officials of the bank have stated in their statements that PW-6 Bachittar Singh informed the cash in the sum of Rs. 1,66,509.20 having been kept in the safe as being the closing cash. It was put in the safe alongwith cash reserve book. Witness learnt about shortage of Rs. 70,000/-. In his cross-examination, he stated that Bachittar Singh informed him that one key he had kept on the television table and the other was retained by him in his pocket. In his statement before the police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. witness stated that Bachittar Singh had informed him regarding fire in question which position he denied in the court. 13. PW-4 is Dan Singh, Manager. He was relieved on 18.8.2000 by Bachittar Singh so that he could join one weeks training at Lucknow. He was on his way to bus stand to catch the bus and the appellant was carrying his brief case. Because the bus did not stop, therefore, he asked the appellant to call Bachittar Singh so that witness could be dropped at some place from where he could catch the bus. He belongs to Jogindernagar He could catch the bus at Tikken. He was to board the train from Pathankot to Lucknow. So, he stayed that night at Jogindernagar. On the morning of 19.8.2000, he learnt regarding fire in question. Thus, canceling his departure to Lucknow, he came to Barot and found that the bank branch and rest of bazar had been reduced to ashes. He came across PW-6 at about 10 AM. Officials of police and administration had reached there. Witness claims that Bachittar Singh informed him that the keys of the safe were not traceable. Witness was also informed by PW-6 about the cash that was put in the safe. Safe was intact and was lying there. It was guarded by the police. Since keys were not available, therefore, PW-4 requested for getting other set of the keys of the safe from Punjab National Bank, Tikken, So that it could be opened. Safe was opened and the cash was found short by Rs. 70,000/- i.e. one bundle of Rs. 500/- and two bundles of Rs. TOO/- each. It was guarded by the police. Since keys were not available, therefore, PW-4 requested for getting other set of the keys of the safe from Punjab National Bank, Tikken, So that it could be opened. Safe was opened and the cash was found short by Rs. 70,000/- i.e. one bundle of Rs. 500/- and two bundles of Rs. TOO/- each. Recovered cash was handed over in Sapurdari to Vinod Kumar Sharma, Area Manager, Baijnath vide memo Ext. PE. PW-4 is a witness to this, List of what was found in the safe was prepared which is Ext. PF. What this witness has stated regarding cash position etc. needs to extracted herein below: ".... On 18.8.2000 it was Friday. On every Friday we sent information to the Head Office; Mandi about the cash in hand position and other details. In my absence the said statement was to be sent by the Cashier. The cashier could not sent the statement on that Friday i.e. 18.8.2000. It is correct To suggest that there is no proof except the cash statement as to the cash in hand." 14. He has stated that on 19.8.2000 when the cashier met the witness, one key was shown to him. There is nothing said by PW-2 Vipin Sehgal in this behalf who had asked this witness to get the second set of keys from Punjab National Bank, Tikken. He specifically stated in the court having not stated before the police that on the night of the incident some persons look out the luggage from the room of Bachittar Singh and one key was found by those persons. Though he stated so in his statement made to the police He was confronted with this portion of the statement. He admits that responsibility of the cash is of the Cashier and departmental inquiry is pending against PW-6. 15. PW-5 Vinod Kumar, was the Area Manager of the bank at Bajjnath on the date of incident. He while giving other facts has mentioned the sum what was kept in the safe alongwith the cash reserve book. After the safe was opened with the keys brought by PW-4 from Punjab National Bank, Tikken it was found deficient by Rs. 70,000/-. He admits that the statement needs to be dispatched on Friday, though voluntarily stated that at times it is sent on Monday if the amount does not tally. After the safe was opened with the keys brought by PW-4 from Punjab National Bank, Tikken it was found deficient by Rs. 70,000/-. He admits that the statement needs to be dispatched on Friday, though voluntarily stated that at times it is sent on Monday if the amount does not tally. In this behalf it may be noted here that it is not the case of either PW-4 or PW-6 that the cash did not tally on 18.8.2000. Per him, the cash balance statement and cash reserve book is the authentic proof of the balance in the bank. He further stated that there is no documentary proof as to how much cash was there in the safe. He further stated that he informed the police about Bachittar Singh having informed the witness that one key was burnt and the other was with him which fact is not recorded in his statement when he was confronted with it. 16. PW-6 is Bachittar Singh. He while stating the procedure opening the safe stated that Dan Singh while being relieved, handed over Managers keys to him. Som Nath having gone to see off the Manager, returned at 2:20 PM and asked the witness to take his scooter to go with the Manager, because the Manager could not catch the bus. Then the witness claims to have closed the cash and kept the same in the safe alongwith cash reserve book and after locking it had put the keys in his drawer. Then he went on his scooter and picked up the Manager and the said PW was able to catch the bus at Tikken. After finishing the work at about 5 PM, he took out both the sets of keys from his drawer and kept one set in his house Below the television and the other set of keys of Manager was kept in the house of Manager which was adjacent to the house of the witness. He left his house and went to Bazar. He met Piar Chand. He and Lachman who were his friends. Both of them asked him to come to their village Lawai as there was some function /fair. On that night he stayed at the house of Piar Chand. He is also specific about the amount kept by him in the safe alongwith cash reserve book on the fateful day. He met Piar Chand. He and Lachman who were his friends. Both of them asked him to come to their village Lawai as there was some function /fair. On that night he stayed at the house of Piar Chand. He is also specific about the amount kept by him in the safe alongwith cash reserve book on the fateful day. At 8.45 AM on 19.8.2000, he came across a person at village Lawai and learnt that the Barot Bazar was completely gutted in fire. He reached Barot by taking lift and covering a long distance on foot. Per this witness, Diwan Chand (PW-10) handed over one set of keys to him. This witness was working as part time Sweeper in the bank. On inquiry from the Manager, pw-6 says that he gave the figure of cash that was kept by him in the safe. The witness further stated that he gave the figure deposited by him in the safe to the General Manager and the Area Manager of the bank. He also claims to have informed everybody about the cash position and about keys. General Manager directed to obtain the duplicate keys of safe which were kept with the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Tikken, 20.8.2000 being Sunday, keys were obtained on 21.8.2000 and thereafter safe was opened in the presence of Panchyat Pradhan as well as Vinod Kumar Sharma, PW-5, Dan Singh and police officials. Then deficiency of Rs. 70,000/- was noted. In his cross-examination, he admits that he had filled in the cash reserve book and kept it with cash in safe locking it. He was unable to state as to how much cash was taken out of the chest on 18.8.2000 for keeping in drawer and how much cash was kept in the chest on the dates preceding 18.8.2000. He denied the suggestion that Diwan Chand had not handed over the keys of safe on 19.8.2000. He admits that Om Prakash Bakshi (pw-7) was member of Notified Area Committee, Jogindernagar and the witness resides in the ward of pw-7. Om Prakash Bakashi alongwith Kailash Chand had come to the police Station but denied that they had come to save the witness. 17. Here it may be relevant to note that PW-6 as well as the appellant both were arrested by the police. Om Prakash Bakashi alongwith Kailash Chand had come to the police Station but denied that they had come to save the witness. 17. Here it may be relevant to note that PW-6 as well as the appellant both were arrested by the police. However, after recovery, witness was found to be not involved in the commission of the offence and he was discharged by the police. This is what has been stated by the Investigating Officer (PW-20). 18. PW-7 is Om Prakash Bakshi in whose presence appellant is alleged to have made the disclosure statement as to where he had kept the currency notes at Barot. There were kept by him in third storey of his house and the appellant further stated that he can get those recovered. This disclosure statement is Ext. PG. In corss-examination, he says that he had gone to police Station to meet the S.H.O. in connection with some personal work, but declined to tell the court as to-in what connection he had gone there. While admitting that he knew Bachittar Singh, Cashier since the latter belonged to , Jogindernagar, but denied that he was friendly to the witness. He admitted that he was a member of Notified Area Committee and Bachittar Singh was from his Ward. 19. PW-8 Vijay Kumar has narrated the facts regarding fire and Bachittar Singh having told the witness regarding the amount that was kept in the safe and its having been found deficient by Rs. 70,000/-whon it was opened. List of cash that was taken out of the safe was prepared. It was handed over to Vinod Kumar on Sapurdari vide Ext. PE. Similarly, documents which were found in the safe*were entered in a list Ext. PF on which he has also put his signatures. He as well as one Ashok Kumar, Shopkeeper were called by the police According to the witness, accused led the police party to the third storey of his house and took out a ploythene packet. A sum of Rs. 68,600/- was found when counted. One bundle was of Rs. 500/- and another of Rs. 100/-, whereas 86 notes of Rs. 100/- were found. Photographs were taken of the spot. Currency notes were sealed in a parcel with the seal K vide seizure memo Ext. PJ. He as well as Ashok Kumar signed this memo. 20. A sum of Rs. 68,600/- was found when counted. One bundle was of Rs. 500/- and another of Rs. 100/-, whereas 86 notes of Rs. 100/- were found. Photographs were taken of the spot. Currency notes were sealed in a parcel with the seal K vide seizure memo Ext. PJ. He as well as Ashok Kumar signed this memo. 20. PW-10 is Diwan Chand who was working as part time Sweeper in the bank, Ha stated that on the following morning of the incident, he handed over the keys to the Manager when he came in the presence of Bachittar Singh who in turn gave it to Bachittar Singh. In cross-examination he stated that the key was handed over by him to Dan Singh at 7AM. 21. PW-20 is S.I. Prakash Chand, Investigating Officer. He while giving details of the action after receipt of information from PW-1 S.D.M. stated that both the appellant as well as Bachittar Singh were taken into custody by the police and were remanded to police custody by the Additional Chief Judicial .Magistrate. He claims to have interrogated the appellant in the presence of PW-7 when disclosure statement was made. Since he did not have conveyance on 22.8.2000 and it was evening time, so he went to the spot for effecting recovery on 23.8.2000. There in the presence of Vijay Kumar, Pradhan (PW-8) and Ashok Kumar, appellant is stated to have taken the police party to spot and identified the place where recovery was effected. Per this witness, after recovery, photographs of the spot were taken. Currency notes were sealed with seal K and its specimen seal was handed over to PW-8. It may be noted here that PW-8 has neither produced the seal nor he said that the seal was delivered to him after currency notes were sealed. He further admits that after recovery, Bachittar Singh was found innocent and he was discharged on 28.8.2000. He also admits that he did not take into possession key of the safe fro/ri-Bachittar Singh. PW. 22. On the other hand, appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. he has stated that Bachittar Singh had closed the cash and kept the same alongwith cash reserve book, but has stated that he does not know as to where the keys were kept by the witness (PW-6). PW. 22. On the other hand, appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. he has stated that Bachittar Singh had closed the cash and kept the same alongwith cash reserve book, but has stated that he does not know as to where the keys were kept by the witness (PW-6). He further stated that he was present at the spot on 19th and 20th August, 2000 and had given the keys of shutter on the morning of 19.8.2000 to Bachittar Singh. 23. Appellant also led defence evidence, wherein he has tried to show that the alleged disclosure statement was the result of beating having been administered to him by the S.H.O. in the presence of DW-2, Lekh Ram who had gone to police Station to get verification certificate in respect of his son who had passed 10+2 examination. DW-3 is the father of the appellant who stated that on 21.8.2000 at 5 PM police came to his house and appellant was not found there. Police stayed at his residence on that night. Some police people had stayed there on 22nd and 23rd August 2000. He admitted photographs Ext. PT/1 and PT/2 of his residence. He stated that he appellant does not reside with him. Rather he lives in the adjoining house. 24. The primary question involved in this appeal is who committed the theft and when? Admittedly, both sets of keys with which the safe could be opened were in possession of Bachittar Singh, PW after Dan Singh handed over the charge on his way to Lucknow. This fact is proved as well as admitted by PWs 4 and 6. It has also come on record that both these sets being not available, therefore, PW-2 General Manager asked Dan Singh to get the other set of keys from Punjab National Bank, Tikken branch where those were kept in safe custody. 19.8.2000 being Saturday and 20.8.2000 being Sunday, the keys were obtained from Punjab National Bank, Ttkken on. 21.8,2000 and with these keys the safe was opened. 25. Where were the keys which were admittedly proved to be with Bachittar Singh on 18.8.2000. It was for the prosecution to have explained. 19.8.2000 being Saturday and 20.8.2000 being Sunday, the keys were obtained from Punjab National Bank, Ttkken on. 21.8,2000 and with these keys the safe was opened. 25. Where were the keys which were admittedly proved to be with Bachittar Singh on 18.8.2000. It was for the prosecution to have explained. In case prosecution successfully explained and also further either by direct or other circumstantial evidence, was able to establish that from the possession of Bachittar Singh, appellant pilfered/removed the keys then it is for him to show how and for what purpose, he had committed such an act. Again at the risk of repetition, it may be noted here that there is no such evidence. Bachittar Singh on one hand has stated that before going to drop Dan Singh on scooter at Tikken, he had put the cash in safe alongwith cash reserve book locked it. He claims that the keys were kept by him in his drawer. Appellant in his. statement under Section 313 Cr. P.O." stated that cash was closed by the witness, but where he had put the keys he was not aware. 26. Thereafter there are different versions given by PWs 2,4,6 and 10 regarding both the sets of keys. As already noted, PW-2 has gone on record to state that per Bachittar Singh, one key of the safe was with him which was kept in his house but is not traceable. Therefore, the said witness PW-2 directed Dan Singh to obtain duplicate key from Punjab National Bank, Tiklkeh. According to this witness, Bachittar Singh had put one key on the television table and the other in his pocket, whereas PW-4 has stated that when he informed PW-2 regarding missing keys, then the said witness (pw-2) asked to get the duplicate set of keys from Punjab National Bank which the witness had obtained. In his statement made to the police he stated that on the night of incident, some persons took out the luggage from the room of Bachittar Singh and that Diwan Chand had given him one key of the safe. But he denied having stated that while appearing as a witness. In his statement made to the police he stated that on the night of incident, some persons took out the luggage from the room of Bachittar Singh and that Diwan Chand had given him one key of the safe. But he denied having stated that while appearing as a witness. On the other hand, PW-5 Vinod Kumar, the then Area Manager at Baijnath stated that Bachittar Singh informed him that one set of keys had been traced which was with him (Bachittar Singh), whereas the other was untraceable and might have been burnt in the fire. He has made this improvement in court and stated that this fact was not so recorded in his statement before the police. 27. On the other hand, PW-6, Bachittar Singh being the person responsible for safe custody of keys has stated that after he finished his work by 5 PM on 18.8.2000, he took out both the sets of keys from his drawer and thereafter went to his residence. He kept one set beneath the television and the other set was kept by him in the house of Manager which was adjacent to his residence. According to this witness, Diwan Chand (PW-10 handed over one set of keys to him which he found in the debris. This key had to be there. PW-4 does not state anything about PW10 having given him one key and that having been passed to PW 6. 28. In the face of this evidence, it cannot be inferred by any stretch of imagination that the appellant had any access much less an opportunity to deal with the keys i.e. both the sets in the absence whereof it was not possible to have operated the safe as per admitted case of the prosecution. Nor there are any circumstance to suggest, muchless to hold that the appellant had any opportunity to have taken out the keys and then having operated the safe. Here his acquittal for the other offences under Sections 436 and 201 IPC assumes significance coupled with the fact that the State is not aggrieved by his acquittal as no appeal has been filed. Causing of fire seems to be. attributed to the appellant with the intention to destroy the evidence of theft. 29. Here his acquittal for the other offences under Sections 436 and 201 IPC assumes significance coupled with the fact that the State is not aggrieved by his acquittal as no appeal has been filed. Causing of fire seems to be. attributed to the appellant with the intention to destroy the evidence of theft. 29. In view of the nature of the evidence regarding availability of the keys as well there being nothing to suggest that the appellant could either have the keys or could have opened the safe, this important link in the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt against him is completely missing. 30. As already noted there is overwhelming evidence to show that the cash position statement was being sent every Friday to the Head Office of the Bank at Mandi. Similarly, cash reserve book and the cash position are the authentic documents to show as to what was the cash that was with the bank and had been deposited in the safe before it was closed. As already noted, cash reserve book is not one of the documents found in the safe as per list prepared when it was opened alongwith cash actually found in it. Where this cash reserve book has gone, nothing is stated by any of the prosecution witness. Again it is not the prosecution case that the appellant had either removed it or destroyed it. Similarly, there is no legal evidence from which it can be inferred as to why 1he cash position statement was not sent to Head Office at Mandi on Friday i.e. 18.8.2000. Statement of Bachittar Singh on this aspect in the circumstances of this case cannot be accepted. Then remains the word of mouth of Bachittar Singh that he had deposited Rs. 1,60,590.20 in the safe before it was closed by him while going from bank to drop Dan Singh on his scooter so that he (Dan Singh) was able to catch the bus. With a view to test his veracity, he was cross-examined to state as to what was the amount of cash that was taken out on the morning for 18.8.2000 and what was the extent of cash put in the safe prior to 18.8.2000. He was unable to give any details of such cash. With a view to test his veracity, he was cross-examined to state as to what was the amount of cash that was taken out on the morning for 18.8.2000 and what was the extent of cash put in the safe prior to 18.8.2000. He was unable to give any details of such cash. In these circumstances, stand of the prosecution as well as of PW-6 having given the exact figure that was deposited by him on 18.8.2000 at 1,60,590.20 cannot be accepted. Thus what follows from this is that there is no legal much less satisfactory evidence to establish as to what was the cash put in the safe by PW-6 before he closed it on 18.8.2000. 31. So far recovery is concerned, it is also not free from doubt. Reason being that the appellant was at police Station, PW-7 was admittedly a member of Notified Area Committee, Jogindernagar in whose ward PW-6 Bachittar Singh lived. He alongwith another person had gone to the Police Station for some personal work which he refused to disclose to the court. No reason has been given by him as to why he did not want to disclose the work. Though he admits knowing PW-6 but denied that either he was friendly or had gone to save him (Bachittar Singh). Work for which he had gone when admittedly Bachittar Singh was in custody alongwith the appellant, possibly was to have saved PW 6. 32. In addition to this, PW-20, Investigating Officer has stated that after sealing the recovered currency notes, he handed over the seal bearing impression K’ to PW-8 Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar as PW8 has not said anything in that behalf nor seal was summoned from him. In these circumstances, statement of PW-7 regarding disclosure and that of PW-8 regarding recovery of currency notes is not free from doubt and, therefore, it will not be safe to accept these statements and convict the appellant. 33. After having considered the entire evidence both oral as » well as documentary and taking note of all the facts, I am satisfied that j prosecution has failed to complete all the links in the chain of circumstances so as to hold that it points towards one and irresistible conclusion leading to the guilt of the appellant. Prosecution in this case has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the appellant. 34. Prosecution in this case has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the appellant. 34. It is by now well settled that where on examination of the entire prosecution evidence, two views are possible, then the one favorable to the accused needs to be followed. (See Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1973 SC 2773). 35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed ant it is ordered accordingly. As a consequence of it, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 380 IPS, thus conviction and sentence imposed upon him is hereby set aside. He is in custody. He will be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in some other case. Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to him.