JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 27-M/VII/2007 titled State of HP v. Ravinder Kumar and others decided on 31.12.2007. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE : 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 31.5.2005 at about 5.00 PM accused persons in furtherance of common object to marry prosecutrix with co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu against her will as well as against the will of her natural guardian and managed to take prosecutrix from her house on motor cycle by way of telling prosecutrix that her friend Ms Rita resident of village Jaunta had called her. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons took prosecutrix upon a motor cycle with the intention to marry her with co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu. It is further alleged by prosecution that since mother of prosecutrix came in search of her daughter accused persons could not succeed in performing the marriage of prosecutrix. It is further alleged by prosecution that prosecutrix daughter of Sh Bishan Dass was studying in 10th class in the year 2005 and was under the custody and care of her parents at village Kotla. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons served cold drink and 'Laddu' (Sweets) to prosecutrix and on consumption of cold drink and 'Laddu' (Sweets) prosecutrix started feeling giddiness. It is further alleged by prosecution that prosecutrix was brought to temple for marriage purpose. It is further alleged by prosecution that father of prosecutrix reported the matter to District Magistrate Ext PW1/A and thereafter FIR Ext PW9/A was registered. It is further alleged by prosecution that car and its documents were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW8/A. It is further alleged by prosecution that motor cycle was also took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW12/B and site plan Ext PW12/C was prepared. It is further alleged by prosecution that certificate Ext PW5/A was collected by the Investigating Officer from Secretary Gram Panchayat Mehella District Chamba. Charge was framed against accused persons under Sections 363, 366, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case: Sr. Charge was framed against accused persons under Sections 363, 366, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case: Sr. No. Name of Witness PW 1 Sh Bishan Dass PW 2 Ms Shikha PW 3 Smt. Tara Devi PW 4 Sh Kanshi Ram PW 5 Sh Hem lal PW 6 Ms Rita PW 7 Sh Rajinder Kumar PW 8 Sh Dev Raj PW 9 ASI Kailash Chand PW 10 SHO Mohinder Singh PW 11 SI Hans Raj 4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No. Description: Ext PW1/A Complaint Ext PW5A Certificate Ext PW8/A Memo Ext. PW9/A FIR Ext PW9/B Endorsement Ext PW12/A Endorsement Ext PW12/B Seizure memo Ext PW12/C Site plan Ext PW12/D Statement of Rajinder Kumar Ext PW12/E Statement of Kanshi Ram Ext PW12/F Statement of Kanshi Ram Ext DA-1 Statement of prosecutrix Ext DA Extract of family register Ext.DB Copy of order dated 16.7.2005 5. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons did not examine any defence witness. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned trial Court State of HP filed the present appeal. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons and also gone through the entire record carefully. 8. Question that arises for determination before us is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9. PW1 Bishan Dass has stated that his family consists of his wife Tara Devi, two daughters and son. He has stated that his wife was posted as Senior Assistant in Senior Secondary School Bhadawar. He has stated that on dated 31.5.2005 he received a telephone call from his wife at his place of posting at village Mhow in Madhya Pradesh informing him that prosecutrix had been kidnapped by accused persons with intent to marry her. He has stated that prosecutrix was traced at about 8.30 PM in the same day. He has stated that on dated 31.5.2005 he received a telephone call from his wife at his place of posting at village Mhow in Madhya Pradesh informing him that prosecutrix had been kidnapped by accused persons with intent to marry her. He has stated that prosecutrix was traced at about 8.30 PM in the same day. He has stated that he sent a complaint through Army authorities to District Magistrate Kangra with a copy to soldier board Kangra. He has stated that complaint Ext PW1/A bears his signature. He has stated that his daughter and wife both have telephoned him. He has sated that on the basis of conversation with both of them he had filed a complaint. He has denied suggestion that he was provided wrong information. 9.1 PW2 prosecutrix has stated that in the year 2005 she was studying in 10th class in Senior Secondary School Kotla. She has stated that on dated 31.5.2005 her mother was working as Senior Assistant in Senior Secondary School Bhadawar. She has stated that at about 11.00 AM when she was ready to go to school to take admission in plus one class, mother of the prosecutrix refused to take admission on that day and informed prosecutrix that admission would be taken after 2/3 days. She has stated that she was in school dress. She has stated that Mohit came to her house and told prosecutrix that her girl friend Reeta was calling her. She has stated that Mohit took her on his motor cycle to his house at village Jaunta and accused persons Subhash, Ravinder, Sarita, Manoj Kumar @ Palu and Remeshwari were present there. She has stated that Madhu served cold drink and 'Laddu' (Sweets) etc. to her. She has stated that on consumption cold drink and 'Laddu' (Sweets) she started feeling giddiness. She has stated that accused persons told her that she would be married with Manoj Kumar @ Palu and thereafter she started weeping. She has stated that thereafter accused persons took her to Kakaro temple. She has stated that she told Mohit and co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu to allow her to contact her parents on telephone but they did not permit her to do so. She has stated that she was sent with one Kaka on his scooter by Kanshi Ram up to village Jaunta. She has stated that she told Mohit and co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu to allow her to contact her parents on telephone but they did not permit her to do so. She has stated that she was sent with one Kaka on his scooter by Kanshi Ram up to village Jaunta. She has stated that thereafter co-accused Subhash Chand and his wife came in a car and after stopping the scooter of Kaka took her in the car and left to their house. She has stated that she was instructed by one Geeta Devi that she would not reveal anything to anyone. She has stated that she informed her father telephonically. She has denied suggestion that she had intimacy with co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu. She denied suggestion that in order to save the honour of her family she levelled false allegation against accused persons. 9.2 PW3 Tara Devi has stated that prosecutrix was born on 10th December 1990. She has stated that on dated 31.5.2005 her daughter asked her to get her admission in plus one class but she told her daughter that she would be admitted in school after two days and thereafter she left for duty. She has stated that she returned at home at about 5.30 PM. She has stated that she was told by her another daughter that prosecutrix was not at home. She has stated that her another daughter told her that Mohit came at about 5 PM and handed over keys of house. She has stated that thereafter she inquired about prosecutrix from Madhu telephonically and thereafter she went to the house of co-accused Ravinder and inquired about prosecutrix. She has stated that she along with her nephew Pankaj went in search of prosecutrix and in the meantime she was told by Madhu telephonically that prosecutrix would come and she should not be worried. She has stated that thereafter she along with Pankaj proceeded to the house of Madhu at village Jaunta but nobody was found there. She has stated that thereafter she proceeded towards old village Jaunta where some marriage was going on but her prosecutrix was not there. She has stated that she again proceeded to the house of Madhu at village Jaunta where she was informed that prosecutrix was sent to village Kotla. She has stated that thereafter she proceeded towards old village Jaunta where some marriage was going on but her prosecutrix was not there. She has stated that she again proceeded to the house of Madhu at village Jaunta where she was informed that prosecutrix was sent to village Kotla. She has stated that co-accused Subhash Chand requested her that she should not report the matter to police. She has stated that police officials already recorded the statement of prosecutrix. She has stated that thereafter she returned to village Kotla and found prosecutrix at home. She has stated that thereafter she intimated the matter to her husband telephonically. She has stated that prosecutrix told her that she was took by accused persons under criminal conspiracy. 9.3. PW4 Kanshi Ram has stated that he is agriculturist and running a shop at village Kakroh. He has stated that he along with his wife was sitting in the shop. He has stated that Sawarna Devi told him that a boy and girl who were strangers were sitting in the temple. He has stated that in the meanwhile girl and boy came on motor cycle to his shop. He has stated that he stopped the motor cycle and on inquiry rider of the motor cycle told him that he is resident of village Indora and girl told that she is resident of village Shahpur. The witness was declared hostile. Witness was cross examined at length but no incriminating statement came against accused persons. 9.4 PW5 Hem Lal has stated that since January 2007 he was posted as Secretary in gram panchayat Mehla and brought family register. He has stated that he supplied copy of family register Ext PW5/A to the investigating agency. He has stated that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.12.1990. 9.5 PW6 Ritta has stated that prosecutrix is her friend and was her class fellow in 10th class in the year 2005. She has stated that she did not call prosecutrix to her house. She has stated that she does not know Mohit. 9.6 PW7 Ravinder Kumar has stated that he had a scooter bearing No HP-38A-6127 in the year 2005. He has stated that marriage of his cousin was fixed for 31.5.2005 at village Kuppar adjoining to village Jaunta and there was also wrestling fair. She has stated that she does not know Mohit. 9.6 PW7 Ravinder Kumar has stated that he had a scooter bearing No HP-38A-6127 in the year 2005. He has stated that marriage of his cousin was fixed for 31.5.2005 at village Kuppar adjoining to village Jaunta and there was also wrestling fair. He has stated that he had gone there to participate in the wrestling on dated 31.5.2005. He has stated that on his return his scooter was stopped by Pandit Kanshi Ram and he asked him as to why he knew prosecutrix who was standing there. He has stated that he knows prosecutrix and thereafter he took prosecutrix on his scooter up to village Jaunta. The witness was declared hostile. Witness was cross examined but no incriminating statement came against accused persons. 9.7 PW8 Dev Raj has stated that on dated 28.7.2005 police took into possession car and its documents and driving license of co-accused Subhash Chand and memo Ext PW8/A was prepared. 9.8 PW9 Kailash Chand has stated that in the year 2005 he was posted as Investigating Officer in police station Shahpur. He has stated that on receipt of Ext PW1/A FIR Ext PW9/A was registered which bears his signature. He has stated that he made endorsement Ext PW1/B on the receipt Ext PW1/A. He has stated that thereafter FIR was sent to Investigating Officer through HHG Jagdish Chand. 9.9 PW10 Mohinder Singh has stated that in the year 2005 he was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station Shahpur and he prepared challan and presented the same in Court. 9.10 PW11 Hans Raj has stated that in the year 2005 he was posted as Incharge Police Post Kotla. He has stated that on dated 2.7.2005 complaint Ext PW1/A was received in police station. He has stated that he was directed by Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter. He has stated that he visited at village Kotla and Jaunta and thereafter he submitted a report to Superintendent of Police. He has stated that Superintendent of Police directed him to register a criminal case and thereafter FIR Ext PW9/A was registered. He has stated that statements of prosecutrix witness were recorded as per their versions. He has stated that he also visited the temple at village Sakroh. He has stated that Superintendent of Police directed him to register a criminal case and thereafter FIR Ext PW9/A was registered. He has stated that statements of prosecutrix witness were recorded as per their versions. He has stated that he also visited the temple at village Sakroh. He has stated that prosecutrix and co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu and one Mohit who is facing trial in Juvenile Board at Una were found sitting in the complex of the temple. He has stated that he recorded their statements according to their versions. He has stated that a car bearing No. HP-38-A 3583 and motor cycle LML were took into possession along with documents vide seizure memo Ext PW12/B and Ext PW8/A in the presence of witness. He has stated that motor cycle was identified by prosecutrix. He has stated that site plan Ext PW12/C was prepared. He has stated he also obtained Middle Standard Certificate and birth certificate of prosecutrix. He has stated that as per his investigation prosecutrix was deceitfully carried by accused persons. He has stated that on conclusion of the investigation case file was handed over to Station House Officer who prepared challan. He has admitted that on inquiry prosecutrix and co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu told him that they came for strolling. He has denied suggestion that he has recorded the statement of the prosecutrix Ext DA at his own. He has denied suggestion that false case was planted against accused persons. (A) Testimony of PW1 Bishan Dass is not helpful to the prosecution in the present case. 10. In the present case testimony of PW1 Bishan Dass is not helpful to the prosecution case because PW1 is not eye witness of the incident because at the time of alleged incident he was posted in Army at Madhya Pradesh and testimony of PW1 is only hearsay evidence and it is well settled law that under Indian Evidence Act hearsay evidence is not admissible. (B) Testimony of prosecutrix is also fatal to the prosecution case. 11. In the present case testimony of prosecutrix is also fatal to the prosecution case. Prosecutrix has specifically stated when she appeared in witness box that some cold drink and sweets were given to her and on consumption of cold drink and sweets she started feeling giddiness. (B) Testimony of prosecutrix is also fatal to the prosecution case. 11. In the present case testimony of prosecutrix is also fatal to the prosecution case. Prosecutrix has specifically stated when she appeared in witness box that some cold drink and sweets were given to her and on consumption of cold drink and sweets she started feeling giddiness. There is no medical evidence on record in order to prove that some intoxicate cold drinks and 'Laddu' (Sweets) were given to the prosecutrix in order to convert the prosecutrix into the stage of intoxication. There is no positive, cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that some intoxicated substance was mixed in the cold drink and 'Laddu' (Sweets) provided to the prosecutrix. No arrangement of marriage ceremony in the temple proved on record in the present case. There is no evidence on record to prove that priest was engaged to perform the marriage ceremony by the accused persons. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that articles of marriage ceremony were brought by the accused persons in temple. Hence it is held that testimony of prosecutrix is not sufficient to convict accused persons. (C) Testimony of PW3 Smt Tara Devi is also fatal to the prosecution case in the present case. 12. PW3 Tara Devi mother of the prosecutrix is not eye witness of the incident. PW3 has specifically stated in positive manner that she was told by co-accused Sarita Devi that they would come with prosecutrix and PW3 Tara Devi should not worry about it. PW3 has stated that when she reached at home she found prosecutrix was already present there. (D) Testimony of PW4 Kanshi Ram is also fatal to the prosecution case. 13. PW4 Sh Kanshi Ram has specifically stated when he appeared in witness box that prosecutrix told him that rider of the vehicle was her maternal uncle. Prosecutrix did not complaint against the accused persons when she met PW 4 Kanshi Ram. No reason has been assigned as to why the prosecutrix did not complaint against the accused persons when she met PW4 Kanshi Ram. (E) Testimonies of PW5 Hem Lal and PW6 Ms Ritta Devi are not helpful to the prosecution case. 14. PW5 Hem Lal is not eye witness of the incident and he has simply proved the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix. (E) Testimonies of PW5 Hem Lal and PW6 Ms Ritta Devi are not helpful to the prosecution case. 14. PW5 Hem Lal is not eye witness of the incident and he has simply proved the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix. Even testimony of PW6 Ritta Devi is not helpful to the prosecution because PW6 has simply stated that prosecutrix is her friend and class fellow. PW6 has stated that she does not know about accused persons. (F) Testimony of PW7 Rajinder Kumar is also not helpful to the prosecution. 15. PW7 Rajinder Kumar has specifically stated that he provided lift to the prosecutrix and when he provided lift to the prosecutrix she did not complaint against accused persons. No reason has been assigned by the prosecution as to why the prosecutrix did not complaint against the accused persons when she was given lift in the vehicle by PW7 Rajinder Kumar. (G) Testimonies of PW8 Dev Raj, PW9 ASI Kailash Chand and PW10 SHO Mohinder Singh are also not helpful to the prosecution in the present case. 16. PW8 Dev Raj is only a corroborative witness and he has stated that only car key, RC, insurance and driving license of co-accused Subhash Chand were took into possession vide memo Ext PW8/A. PW9 ASI Kailash Chand has simply stated that he registered FIR after receipt of rukka. Even testimony of PW10 Mohinder Singh is not helpful to the prosecution because testimony of PW10 is only corroborative in nature and he has simply stated that he has prepared challan in the present case. (H) Testimony of PW11 Hans Raj is also fatal to the prosecution case. 17. PW11 Hans Raj Investigating Officer has specifically stated that on inquiry from prosecutrix and co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu they informed to investigating officer that they voluntarily came for strolling. Prosecutrix had voluntarily stated before investigating officer that she voluntarily came for strolling. It was held in case reported in AIR 1965 SC 942 titled S. Veradarajan v. State of Madras that where the girl left her father protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing and voluntarily joins the accused person the offence of kidnapping could not be said to have been proved. It was held in case reported in AIR 1965 SC 942 titled S. Veradarajan v. State of Madras that where the girl left her father protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing and voluntarily joins the accused person the offence of kidnapping could not be said to have been proved. Similarly in the present case it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that girl had left her parental house voluntarily with co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu. It was held in case reported in AIR 1997 SC 3483 titled Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh that mensrea is a necessary condition for the proof of criminal offence. It was held in case reported in (2010) 14 SCC 129 titled Johan Pandian v. State of Tamil Nadu that in order to punish the accused under criminal conspiracy there should be meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act. It was held in case reported in AIR 1999 SC 782 titled Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh that simply association is not sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case although it is proved on record that prosecutrix had accompanied one of the co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Palu upto temple but no over-act has been established on the part of accused persons. In the present case prosecutrix met several persons but she did not complaint to any of the persons to whom she met against the accused persons. It is well settled principle of law that vested right accrued in favour of the accused with the judgment of acquittal by learned trial Court. (See (2013) 2 SCC 89 titled Mookkiah and another v. State. See 2011 (11) SCC 666 titled State of Rajashthan v. Talevar and another. See AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 78 titled Surendra v. State of Rajasthan. See 2012 (1) SCC 602 titled State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutt). It is well settled principle of law (i) That appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible. See AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 78 titled Surendra v. State of Rajasthan. See 2012 (1) SCC 602 titled State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutt). It is well settled principle of law (i) That appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible. (ii) That while dealing with a judgment of acquittal the appellate Court must consider entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether views of learned trial Court are perverse or otherwise unsustainable (iii) That appellate Court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, learned trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible fact (iv) That learned trial court took into consideration in admissible evidence. (See AIR 1974 SC 2165 titled Balak Ram and another v. State of U.P., See (2002) 3 SCC 57 titled Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, See (2003) 1 SCC 398 titled Raghunath v. State of Haryana, See AIR 2007 SC 3075 State of U.P v. Ram Veer Singh and others, See AIR 2008 SC 2066 , (2008) 11 SCC 186 S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Raddy (D) by his LRs. and others. Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and others v. State of Maharashtra, See (2009) 10 SCC 206 titled Arulvelu and another v. State, See (2009) 16 SCC 98 titled Perla Somasekhara Reddy and others v. State of A.P., See: (2010) 2 SCC 445 titled Ram Singh @ Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh). It was held in case reported in 1998 (2) SLJ 1408 Shashi Pal and others v. State of H.P. that if two versions appear in prosecution evidence then version beneficial to the accused should be adopted. Also see 1993(1) SLJ 405 titled State of H.P. v. Sudarshan Singh, See 1995 (3) SLJ 1819 titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. Inder Jeet and others, See 1995 (4) SLJ 2728 titled State of H.P. v. Diwana and others. Also see 2005 (5) JT 553 titled State of UP v. Gambhir Singh and others. It was held in case reported (2005) 9 SCC 765 titled Anjlus Dungdung v. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. Also see 2005 (5) JT 553 titled State of UP v. Gambhir Singh and others. It was held in case reported (2005) 9 SCC 765 titled Anjlus Dungdung v. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was held in case reported in (2010) 11 SCC 423 titled Nanhar v. State of Haryana that prosecution must stand or fall on its own leg and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defense. Also See: (1984) 4 SCC 116 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. It is well settled law that conjecture or suspicion cannot take place of legal proof. See: AIR 1967 SC 520 Charan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. Also See: AIR 1971 SC 1898 Gian Mahtani v. State of Maharashtra. It was held in case reported in AIR 1979 SC 1382 State (Delhi Administration) v. Gulzarilal Tandon that even where the circumstances raise a serious suspicion against the accused it cannot take the place of legal proof. See: AIR 1983 SC 906 titled Bhugdomal Gangaram and others v. The State of Gujarat See: AIR 1985 SC 1224 titled State of UP v. Sukhbasi and others. There are following stages for commission of criminal offence i.e. (1) Criminal intention (2) Criminal preparation for commission of criminal offence (3) Criminal over-act for commission of criminal offence (4) Completion of criminal offence finally. It is well settled law that courts are under legal obligation to take grain from chaff and courts should not take chaff from gain. 18. In view of the above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and it is held that learned trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused persons in the present case. Judgment passed by learned trial Court is affirmed and appeal filed by appellant-State is dismissed. All pending applications if any are also disposed of. Record of learned trial Court along with certify copy of judgment be transmitted forthwith. Appeal dismissed.