JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. In these appeals filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., convicts Manoj Kumar and Ashok Kumar have assailed judgment dated 09.05.2011, passed by Special Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No.23/2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Ashok Kumar & another, whereby they stand convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) each and in default thereof, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 07.09.2010, police party headed by SI Harjit Singh (PW.8) of Police Station, Sadar, Una, accompanied by Albel Singh (PW.1) and Purshotam Lal (not examined), was on routine patrol duty. While they were standing on the road at a place known as Pir Nigah Talab, a vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing No.HP-01B-0326 came from Pir Nigah side, which on signal stopped and on enquiry, driver disclosed his name as Manoj Kumar and the passenger sitting next to him disclosed his name as Ashok Kumar. On suspicion, police party, after joining Piare Lal (PW.7), an independent person present on the spot, searched the vehicle. One red coloured bag concealed below the driver's seat was recovered. Ashok Kumar (accused) also got down from the vehicle. Just as the bag was about to be checked, Manoj Kumar (accused) drove the vehicle away. On the asking of Harjit Singh, Albel Singh followed Manoj Kumar, but after some time returned empty handed. Harjit Singh telephonically requested SHO, Police Station, Bilaspur, to apprehend Manoj Kumar. Thereafter, in the presence of witnesses, bag was searched from which contraband substance, which appeared to be charas, in the shape of sticks, was recovered. When weighed it was found to be 3.5 kgs. The entire parcel was sealed with seal bearing impression =A' and taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PB). Impression of seal was taken on a piece of cloth (Ex.PC), also NCB forms filled up. Original seal was entrusted to Albel Singh vide memo (Ex.PD). When weighed it was found to be 3.5 kgs. The entire parcel was sealed with seal bearing impression =A' and taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PB). Impression of seal was taken on a piece of cloth (Ex.PC), also NCB forms filled up. Original seal was entrusted to Albel Singh vide memo (Ex.PD). Rukka (Ex.PW.8/A) was sent through Constable Purshotam Lal, on the basis of which FIR No.288 dated 07.09.2010 (Ex.PW.9/A) was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Una, H.P., under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, against the accused. Accused Ashok Kumar was arrested on 08.09.2010 vide memo (Ex.PW.8/D) and searched vide memo (Ex.DB), information pertaining to which was furnished to his brother Ashwani Kumar vide memo (Ex.PW.8/D). Harjit Singh entrusted case property to SHO, Ruldu Ram (PW.9), who resealed it with his seal bearing impression =B' and after making entries in the NCB forms, handed over the same to MHC Ajaib Singh (PW.2). For getting the stuff chemically examined Ajaib Singh handed over the bulk parcel to Constable Naveen Kumar (PW.3), who deposited the same at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. Harjit Singh, then proceeded to Bilaspur, where accused Manoj Kumar was apprehended and detained by ASI Ajit Singh (PW.6). Manoj Kumar was then arrested on 08.09.2010 vide memo (Ex.PW.8/E) and searched vide memo (Ex.DC). Report of the Chemical Analyst (Ex.PD) was obtained by the police. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. The accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which they took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led. 5. Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused of the charged offence and sentenced them as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. P.P. Chauhan and Mr.A.K. Vashishta, Advocates, on behalf of the convicts as also M/s B.S. Parmar, Ashok Chaudhary, V.S. Chauhan, learned Addl. AGs., assisted by M/s Vikram Thakur and Puneet Rajta, learned Dy. Hence the present appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. P.P. Chauhan and Mr.A.K. Vashishta, Advocates, on behalf of the convicts as also M/s B.S. Parmar, Ashok Chaudhary, V.S. Chauhan, learned Addl. AGs., assisted by M/s Vikram Thakur and Puneet Rajta, learned Dy. AGs., on behalf of the State. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that the reasoning adopted by the trial Court is perverse and is not based on correct and complete appreciation of testimonies of the witnesses. Judgment in question is not based on correct and complete appreciation of evidence and material placed on record, causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. The apex Court in Lal Mandi v. State of W.B., (1995) 3 SCC 603 , has held that in an appeal against conviction, the appellate Court is duty bound to appreciate the evidence on record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of evidence, benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. 8. While convicting the accused two factors heavily weighed with the trial Court: (i) testimonies of police officials, fully inspiring in confidence, proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. (ii) There was no interpolation of documents i.e. memos (Ex.DB and Ex. DC), of personal search of the accused. 9. We are constrained to observe that in the impugned judgment there is hardly any discussion of the evidence. Only testimonies of witnesses stand reproduced. Clearly from the testimonies of police officials and independent witness two views, rendering the prosecution story to be extremely doubtful have emerged on record. 10. Testimony of the Investigating Officer, is disbelievable on three counts, rendering the genesis of the prosecution story to be false: (i) His version of having associated independent witness, in whose presence search and seizure operations were conducted, stands belied by the very same witness; (ii) His version of having reported the matter to the police officials of Police Station, Bilaspur, outside his District, is neither corroborated nor proved by any documentary evidence; and (iii) His version of having prepared material documents on different dates, stands falsified not only by the documents but oral testimonies of the witnesses. 11. 11. In the instant case, despite extensive cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, Piare Lal (PW.7) in our considered view, has said nothing in favour of the prosecution. On the contrary he goes to state that he was on his way to the temple, when near bus-stand, Una, Police officials made 3-4 persons sit in a vehicle and took them to Police Station, Una. Unambiguously he states that nothing was recovered in his presence from anyone. Categorically he states that police made him sign documents at the Police Station and no search and seizure operations were conducted in his presence. He was not even aware of contents of the documents pertaining to search and seizure operations (Ex.PA, Ex.PB and Ex.PC) so signed by him. He is an illiterate person and a rustic villager. He stands convicted of an offence under the provisions of NDPS Act, though appeal against such conviction is pending. Now why would police associate such a person as a witness remains unexplained. After all, his place of residence falls within the very same District over which the Investigating Officer had jurisdiction. Police ought to have known his credentials. He categorically states that under threat of false implication in a case, police made him sign the documents in question. Significantly, it has come on record through the testimony of police officials i.e. the Investigating Officer Harjit Singh (PW.8) and his associate Albel Singh (PW.1) that just at a short distance from the place where contraband substance was recovered, there is a Sarai and shops. Also people in large number come to pay obeisance at Pir Nigah which also is closeby. It has also come on record that Police Station, Una was just at a distance of 7-8 kms from there. Now why is it that police did not associate any person other than Piare Lal (PW.7), as an independent witness in carrying out search and seizure operations has not been explained. 12. Significantly, it has come on record through the testimony of Albel Singh that before the bag was searched, Manoj Kumar fled away in the vehicle, leaving Ashok Kumar behind. He chased him and returned after 15 minutes and only thereafter Harjit Singh searched the bag. Harjit Singh could inform Police Station, Bilaspur, for apprehending Manoj Kumar but not call any other person for being associated as an independent person in carrying out search and seizure operations. He chased him and returned after 15 minutes and only thereafter Harjit Singh searched the bag. Harjit Singh could inform Police Station, Bilaspur, for apprehending Manoj Kumar but not call any other person for being associated as an independent person in carrying out search and seizure operations. Presence of Piare Lal on the spot remains unexplained by the prosecution, for after all he is not a local resident nor has it come on record that he had come to Pir Nigah for some work. He is a resident of Una, which is at a distance of 7-8 kms from the spot. Recovery was not effected during the day, but in the night at 8.30 PM. Thus, prosecution story of having associated Piare Lal as an independent witness, at the time of carrying out search and seizure operations, is rendered to be doubtful, if not false. Through his testimony, in our considered view, two views on the issue of conduct of search and seizure operations have emerged on record. And if recovery itself is in doubt benefit has to go to the accused. However, independently we have analyzed the testimonies of police officials; for after all they have no interest in false implication. 13. It is a settled proposition of law that sole testimony of police official, which if otherwise is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police official and may be interested in the success of the case. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eye-witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and if required duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 14. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 14. It is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person. There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. Rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of police administration. 15. Wherever, evidence of a police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. [See: Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station and another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 ; Tika Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 760 ; Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 ); and Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956]. 16 Apex Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, held as under:- "6. ... 16 Apex Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, held as under:- "6. ... .In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case." 17 Even while applying the aforesaid principles of law, on close scrutiny and examination of testimony of police officials Harjit Singh (PW.8) and Albel Singh (PW.1), we find them to be witnesses not worthy of credence or their testimonies believable. There are material contradictions, improvements, embellishments and falsehood in their testimonies further rendering the prosecution case to be doubtful. 18 Harjit Singh states that on 07.09.2010, he was on patrol duty. Police officials Albel Singh and Purshotam Lal (not examined) were with him. But then there is nothing on record to corroborate such version of his. Entry, if any, made at the Police Station, was neither placed nor proved on record, in accordance with law. Harjit Singh further states that on signal, vehicle in question, stopped and two occupants, disclosed their names as Manoj Kumar and Ashok Kumar. One bag lying under the seat of Manoj Kumar, who was on the wheel, was recovered. Also accused Ashok Kumar got down from the vehicle. Just before the bag could be searched, Manoj Kumar fled away in his vehicle. Witness further states that in his personal vehicle, he sent Albel Singh to chase Manoj Kumar, who after some time returned empty handed. ?Thereafter?, he telephonically informed the SHO, Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur, requesting him to apprehend accused Manoj Kumar and his vehicle. Then the bag was opened and checked, from which charas in the shape of sticks was recovered. ?Thereafter?, he telephonically informed the SHO, Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur, requesting him to apprehend accused Manoj Kumar and his vehicle. Then the bag was opened and checked, from which charas in the shape of sticks was recovered. With the weights and scales kept in the I.O. kit, charas was weighed and found to be 3.5 kgs. The same was packed in a cloth parcel and sealed with seven seals of seal bearing impressing =A' and taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PB). Original seal was handed over to Albel Singh vide memo (Ex.PD). Rukka (Ex.PW.8/A) sent through Constable Purshotam Lal led to registration of FIR (Ex.PW.9/A). Thereafter, he recorded statement of Piare Lal and arrested accused Ashok Kumar vide memo (Ex.PW.8/D). With the completion of investigation on the spot, he entrusted the case property to SHO, Ruldu Ram (PW.9), who resealed the parcel with his seal bearing impression =B'. At 5.30 AM (08.09.2010) he reached Police Station, Bilaspur and at 9.30 AM arrested accused Manoj Kumar vide memo (Ex.PW.8/E) Whereafter he brought him back to Police Station, Sadar, Una, ?where? he searched him and prepared memo (Ex.DC). Also he handed over special report (Ex.PW.4/A) to Santosh Patial, Superintendent of Police, Una, for perusal. 19. Thus far, he appears to have deposed truthfully. But from the cross-examination part of his testimony, we find it not to be so. He admits that no record of telephonic conversation which he had with the SHO, Police Station, Bilaspur, is placed on record by him. Why so? has not been explained. This was absolutely necessary as we would find from our discussions herein later. He admits to have prepared memos (Ex.DB and Ex.DC) of jamatalashi of accused Manoj Kumar and Ashok Kumar at different times. But however, bare perusal thereof only reveals them to have been prepared at the same time, which fact is so admitted by Albel Singh, who unambiguously, in his unrebutted testimony, states them to have been prepared, at the Police Station, on 07.09.2010. In fact, on memo Ex.DB there is overwriting. Now this totally belies the prosecution version, rendering the testimony of Harjit Singh to be unbelievable, for according to him, he arrested accused Manoj Kumar in the morning of 08.09.2010 at Police Station, Bilaspur, falling within the jurisdiction of another District and is at a driving distance of three hours from Police Station, Sadar, Una. Now this totally belies the prosecution version, rendering the testimony of Harjit Singh to be unbelievable, for according to him, he arrested accused Manoj Kumar in the morning of 08.09.2010 at Police Station, Bilaspur, falling within the jurisdiction of another District and is at a driving distance of three hours from Police Station, Sadar, Una. After all, from there it would have taken him three hours to return to Police Station, Una. We further find that Harjit Singh travelled to Bilaspur from Una in his personal vehicle. Now why would he do such a thing. It is not that no official vehicle was available at Police Station, Una. Also he states to have visited the place of Nakka in his personal vehicle, in which he had sent Albel Singh to hunt for Manoj Kumar. Now there is nothing on record to establish that police party left Police Station, Una, on a patrol duty, in a private vehicle. Witness admits not to have claimed any travelling allowance for said journey. This is very strange, for after all journey was counted in the course of official and not personal business. 20. We also do not find testimony of Harjit Singh to be inspiring in confidence for yet another reason. How did he come to know that accused Manoj Kumar had fled towards District Bilaspur or was its resident, for after all, even according to police officials, if one were to travel from Una/Pir Nigah to Bilaspur (which is another District), one would have to cross several Police Stations, including Bangana, Barsar, Shahtalai, Bharteen, Una and Mehatpur. Strangely this witness did not report the incident with any one of such Police Stations, including his own Police Station i.e. Una. Why did he not do so? He has not explained. It is here absence of record pertaining to telephonic conversation acquires significance. How did he gather information of detention of accused Manoj Kumar at Police Station, Bilaspur? Remains unexplained. It is not the case of prosecution that such information was given by officials of the Police Station. His testimony that he was carrying weights and scales in his investigation kit, cannot be said to be inspiring in confidence, for after all he had not gone for patrol duty in connection with detection of crime. Also witness does not assign reason for not informing the family of accused Ashok Kumar. His testimony that he was carrying weights and scales in his investigation kit, cannot be said to be inspiring in confidence, for after all he had not gone for patrol duty in connection with detection of crime. Also witness does not assign reason for not informing the family of accused Ashok Kumar. He simply states that Ashwani Kumar, brother of Ashok Kumar, was at the Police Station. Now how would Ashwani Kumar know about arrest of his brother, has not been explained by the prosecution. Also why seal was not handed over to independent witness, has not been explained at all. 21. Witness Purshotam Lal has not been examined in Court. Why so? has not been explained. 22. Albel Singh (PW.1), in his examination-in-chief, has only deposed what the prosecution wants us to believe. But however, from the cross-examination part of his testimony, we find it not to be inspiring in confidence. Exaggerations are there, rendering him to be a witness, not worthy of credence. When confronted with his previous statement (Ex.DA), so recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he admits not to have got recorded that he travelled in a private vehicle. Theory of having chased accused Manoj appears to have introduced after police gathered information of place of his residence in District Bilaspur. He also admits that just ahead of the Talab (Pond) towards Pir Nigah, there are houses and Sarai. Significantly witness admits that all the police officials present on the spot were having their mobile phones. Yet neither he nor Purshotam attempted to inform the officials at anyone of the Police Stations, including Una. Why so? he does not explain. All this casts serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 23. Purshotam Lal, author of seizure memo (Ex.PB), though a cited witness was not examined in Court. Testimonies of Albel Singh and Harjit Singh are not inspiring in confidence at all. Be that as it may, when independent witness Piare Lal did not support the prosecution, it became incumbent upon the prosecution to have examined Purshotam Lal for establishing the prosecution story of preparation of memo (Ex.PB) on the spot and carrying of Rukka (Ex.PW.8/A) to the Police Station. How did he travel to the Police Station? When he reached there? When did he return to the spot with the file? All this would have been explained by him. How did he travel to the Police Station? When he reached there? When did he return to the spot with the file? All this would have been explained by him. His testimony would have only corroborated the otherwise weak and frail testimony of the police officials. 24. It has come on record that Rukka was sent at 10.45 PM and information thereof received at Police Station, Una at 11.20 PM. The FIR was registered at 11.45 PM. There is no time mentioned in the endorsement on the Rukka by the SHO. No time of recovery is mentioned in the memo (Ex.PB). Case property was allegedly produced before the SHO at 1.15 AM. Evidently, resealing was done by the SHO at 1.45 AM (08.09.2010). Significantly, there is cutting on the NCB form. Be that as it may, what renders the prosecution story to be further doubtful is the time, i.e. 1.15 AM, of entrustment of the case property with MHC, as mentioned in Certificate (Ex.PW.9/B) which could not have been prior to 1.45 AM the time when it was resealed by the SHO. Contradiction is writ large and fatal. As per NCB form, recovery was effected at 9.30 PM, then why did police wait for 45 minutes on the spot, has also not been explained. All this renders the prosecution version to be extremely doubtful. 25. There is yet another reason for us to hold that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ajaib Singh (PW.2) is the MHC to whom case property was entrusted by the SHO in the night intervening 7/8.09.2010. He admits that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., with which he was confronted, there is no mention of filling up of NCB forms in triplicate or the fact that Harjit Singh (PW.8) came to the Police Station alongwith accused Ashok Kumar. Improvements/exaggerations/ are galore. Significantly, he admits that even in the Malkhana register, there is no reference of the NCB forms. He tries to explain that it is not so required to be done under law, but then, has not explained why there is no mention of seal, bearing impression =B', in the Malkhana register. What is still intriguing, is the fact that name of the depositor or the time of deposit, of the case property is not recorded in the Malkhana register. What is still intriguing, is the fact that name of the depositor or the time of deposit, of the case property is not recorded in the Malkhana register. Why it was not so done, has not been explained. Crucially we find that against the very next entry (1253) name of Harjit Singh, who purportedly deposited the articles recovered pursuant to conduct of personal search of accused Ashok Kumar, is so recorded. Further he states that he sent the contraband substance for chemical analysis to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, through Naveen Kumar (PW.3), who also verifies such fact. But then, who brought the report from the Laboratory, has not been explained by the prosecution witnesses. Police officials Ajaib Singh, Naveen Kumar, Harjit Singh and Ruldu Ram are silent on this aspect of the matter. Thus, even by way of link evidence, prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 26. Version of Harjit Singh handing over special report to Santosh Patial, Superintendent of Police, Una, in our considered view, is unbelievable. Santosh Patial, has not been examined in Court and his Reader ASI Surjit Singh (PW.4), admits that no register of receipt of special reports is maintained in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Una and file containing lose sheets (reports) is neither indexed nor paginated. Possibility of interpolation is not ruled out. 27. From the testimony of Constable Roshan Lal (PW.5) of Police Station, Bilaspur, prosecution wants us to believe that they received information of the vehicle, in question, to have been parked near Kandror Bridge (District Bilaspur, near Bilaspur Town). Report, in relation thereto, was recorded by him as Ex.PW.5/A. This document, so prepared on 07.09.2010 at 21.10 (9.10 PM), totally belies the prosecution case. For according to Ajaib Singh, it would take two hours for a vehicle to reach Bilaspur and that too at full speed. How can almost at the same time very same vehicle could be present at two different places, has not been explained. Also who gave information, so recorded in Ex.PW.5/A, has not been proved on record. 28. Through the testimony of ASI Ajit Singh (PW.6), Investigating Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, prosecution wants us to believe that accused Manoj Kumar was arrested from his village Delag (Bilaspur) at about 11.45 PM. Also who gave information, so recorded in Ex.PW.5/A, has not been proved on record. 28. Through the testimony of ASI Ajit Singh (PW.6), Investigating Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, prosecution wants us to believe that accused Manoj Kumar was arrested from his village Delag (Bilaspur) at about 11.45 PM. Question which arises for consideration is as to how did this witness know that Manoj Kumar was a resident of this village. Except for the name of the driver, police had no clue of his identity. It is not that Ashok had disclosed the same. Further witness states that based on information of Manoj Kumar being required in a case registered under the provisions of NDPS Act, he detained him at Police Station, till such time, Harjit Singh came and arrested him. Intriguingly no memo of detention was prepared by him. Why so? has not been explained. Further, who gave this information that accused was required in an NDPS case is not proved on record, for it is not the case of prosecution that after the bag was searched and contraband substance recovered, another telephone call was made to SHO, Police Station, Bilaspur, furnishing such. Significantly Albel Singh admits of having called SHO, Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur, much before search of bag and recovery of contraband substance. This also renders the version of Harjit Singh to be unbelievable. 29. Thus for all the aforesaid reasons, findings returned by the trial Court, convicting the accused, cannot be said to be based on correct and complete appreciation of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Such findings cannot be said to be on the basis of any clear, cogent, convincing, legal and material piece of evidence, leading to an irresistible conclusion of guilt of the accused. Incorrect and incomplete appreciation thereof, has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as accused stand wrongly convicted for the charged offence. 30. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 09.05.2011, passed by Special Judge, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Case No.23/2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sh.Ashok Kumar & another, is set aside and both accused Manoj Kumar and Ashok Kumar are acquitted of the charged offences. They be released from jail, if not required in any other case. Amount of fine, if deposited by the accused, be refunded to them accordingly. They be released from jail, if not required in any other case. Amount of fine, if deposited by the accused, be refunded to them accordingly. Release warrants be immediately prepared. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.