Judgment JASBIR SINGH, J. 1. Applicant - State of Haryana has filed this application undersection 378 (3) Cr. P. C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated November 12, 2008, passed by additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, acquitting the respondents. As per record, it was allegation against the respondents that on May 2, 2008, fully armed, they were preparing to commit a robbery. When challenged, they fired shots at the police party. Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, under challenge, reads thus:" 2. The facts of the case of prosecution are that an information was received from an informer that accused Par deep alias Filmy son of Satbir Singh, resident of Biswa village, gurgaon,mahesh son of Lekh Ram, r/o Dhatir and Anil son of Satpal, r/cvill. Kakrola were standing on Mahenderwada road near the bushes and were planning to rob cash from raisaina crusher. They were also having a motor-cycle to be used for commission of the said offence. Upon this information, raiding party wasprepared and approximately at around 300 meters away from the scene of the occurrence as told by the informer, police vehicle was stopped. ASI Dinesh Kumar and Constable Harpalwere directed to cover the accused from Eastern side. Head constable Krishna Kumar was to cover from northern side and SHO himself along with constable Jaswant and Constable Sub hash were to cover from the Southern side of the spot. 3. When the SHO along with his team entered from the Southern side in the dilapidated building and stood near the door, they heard some voices, one of the accused Anil was saying that the Raisaina crusher was to be robbed that day and any person who would try to raise any objection should be killed. Par deep alias Filmy was told to stand outside with the motor-cycle so that they could run away. Mahesh and Anil were to steal the cash. Also, the accused Pardeep alias Filmy was to see that any person if he comes from outside and raises objection should be killed. Mahesh was directed to enter the room of cash and to rob the cash and if some one tried to object, he would shoot him. At this time, Anil and Pardeep would still remain presenta long with Mahesh for robbing the cash along with their weapons. Mahesh was directed to enter the room of cash and to rob the cash and if some one tried to object, he would shoot him. At this time, Anil and Pardeep would still remain presenta long with Mahesh for robbing the cash along with their weapons. Upon hearing this, the police was directed to cover the accused and they announced that the accused have been surrounded from all the sides and they should surrender before the police along with their weapons. Upon this all the three accused who were armed with unlicensed weapons in their hands started firing. Dinesh Kumars raiding party entered from Eastern side. 4. Upon this fire was opened from accused. Dinesh Kumar and Pardeep also started firing in their defence. Therefore, all the three accused with the intention of killing the raiding party fired at them. Firing was also done by constablehasarup and constable Subhash in their defence. 5. However, the three accused ran out of their ammunition and they were told that they should surrender before the raiding party. However, taking advantage of the darkness around them, the accusedhided themselves near thorny bushes where their motorcycle was parked and tried to turn away. However, with the help of the raiding party, the accused were apprehended and on disclo sure, they told their names to be pardeep, Mahesh and Anil. Upon search an unlicensed weapon was recovered from the possession of Pardeep. Upon the search of mahesh, the country made pistol was recovered whose magazine was empty and of which he did not have any licence. From the possession of Anil also an unlicensed country made pistol was recovered of 455 bore. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, formal FIR was registered. " After completing investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, produced eleven witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. On completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. Incriminating material was put to them. They denied the allegations, claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. They, however, led no evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the respondents and accordingly acquitted them. P. C. Incriminating material was put to them. They denied the allegations, claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. They, however, led no evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the respondents and accordingly acquitted them. After going through the contents of the paper book and hearing arguments of counsel for the applicant-State, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment, passed by the trial Court, is perfectly justified and is as per evidence on record. As per prosecution version, it was a case of indiscriminate firing by the respondents upon the police party but none was injured in the incident. The trial court has rightly discarded statement made by PW10 Sunil Kumar, Investigating Officer. To do so, the trial Court has noticed many discrepancies in the statements made by PW10 sunil Kumar, PW7 ASI Dinesh Kumar and pw11 HC Hadi Khan. 7. As per prosecution case, the respondents were hiding in an abandoned building. When challenged, they started indiscriminate firing upon the police party. In return, police party also fired shots in the air. When the respondents accused ran out of ammunition, they hid themselves in thorny bushes. As per evidence on record, no mark of fire-arm shots was found on the walls of the building and furthermore, empties of the shots fired by the police officials were not taken in possession. The Investigating Officer has stated that empties of the shots fired by the respondents were recovered from an area, which was a plain ground, whereas PW7 ASI Dinesh Kumar has stated that empties were recovered from inside the building. The trial Court has rightly discarded story of secret information. Further, the trial Court has also noticed with concern that despite ample opportunity available, public witness was not joined in the raiding party. The trial Court has also noticed various discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses on material points. Everything has been discussed in detail in paras No.12 to 19 of the impugned judgment. 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aharakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aharakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Hans singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- "we are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Honble supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1)SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference. " Counsel for the State has failed to show that the trial Court has committed any error on facts or material irregularity, on the basis of which judgment under challenge qua the respondents can be set aside. For the reasons, mentioned above, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.