JUDGMENT: Present appeal filed against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Special Judge Fast Track Kullu HP in Sessions Trial No 105/2003 titled Customs Preventive Station of Customs Department Vs. Sh Bahadur Singh decided on 30th April, 2007. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 6th June 2003 at about 6.05 PM 860 grams charas was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of accused Bahadur Singh from his residential premises situated at village Vashisht Tehsil Manali District Kullu. Learned trial Court framed charge against accused Bahadur Singh under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on 5th December 2003. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case:- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Dhiren Sanapati PW2 K.N.Bhardwaj PW3 Tarun Kumar PW4 Chaman Lal PW5 Vinay Kumar 3.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No. Description. Ext.PW1/A to Ext PW1/D Extract of entries in malkhana register Ext.PW2/A Seizure memo Ext.PW2/B Panchnama Ext.PW2/C Confessional statement of accused. Ext.PW2/D Report Ext.PW2/E Report Ext.PW2/F Form-F. Ext.PW5/A Arrest memo Ext.PW5/D Report of chemical examiner Ext.PW5/E Inventory. Ext.PW5/B Copy of order dt.7.6.2003 Ext.PW5/C Copy of application dt.7.6.2003 4. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court acquitted the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 20 of the ‘Act’ by way giving him benefit of doubt. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court appellant filed present appeal pleaded therein that judgment announced by learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law and facts. It is pleaded that learned trial Court has illegally discarded the statements of PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj and PW5 Vinay Kumar qua the recovery of charas from the house of accused Bahadur Singh. It is further pleaded that prosecution witnesses namely PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj and PW3 Vinay Kumar along with other witnesses have given complete information of the events resulting in recovery of contraband from possession of the accused. 6. We have considered submissions of learned Assistant Solicitor General and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 7. It is further pleaded that prosecution witnesses namely PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj and PW3 Vinay Kumar along with other witnesses have given complete information of the events resulting in recovery of contraband from possession of the accused. 6. We have considered submissions of learned Assistant Solicitor General and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 7. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court on the basis of material on record was justified in acquitting the accused/respondent for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the ‘Act’ by way giving him benefit of doubt. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 8. PW1 Shri Dhiren Senapati, Inspector Customs Preventive Station has stated that he was Incharge of Malkhana since June 2004. He has stated that prior to him Inspector Tarun Kumar was Incharge of Malkhana. He has stated that he brought the Malkhana register. He has stated that on 6.6.2003 Vinay Kumar Customs Inspector deposited six packets in the malkhana vide entry No. 1/2003. He has stated that true copy of the said entry is Ext.PW1/A. He has stated that case property was withdrawn from the malkhana on 7.6.2003 and the same was handed over to Inspector Vinay Kumar for producing in Court. He has stated that true copy of said entry is Ext.PW1/B. He has further stated that case property was again deposited in malkhana on 7.6.2003 vide entry at serial No.3. He has further stated that true copy of the said entry is Ext PW1/C. He has stated that two sample packets were withdrawn from malkhana on 9.6.2003 for sending the same to CRCL New Delhi. He has further stated that true copy of the said entry is Ext.PW1/D. He has further stated that two bigger packets Ext P1 & Ext P2 and two smaller packets Ext P3 and Ext P4 were produced. He has stated that all samples were sealed with seal ‘Superintendent Central Excise Palampur’. He has further stated that seal number of said seal is 264. He has stated that till the case property remained in his possession it was not tampered with. He has further stated that Tarun Kumar Inspector was posted at Central Excise Chandigarh. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that no case property was deposited in the malkhana. He has further stated that seal number of said seal is 264. He has stated that till the case property remained in his possession it was not tampered with. He has further stated that Tarun Kumar Inspector was posted at Central Excise Chandigarh. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that no case property was deposited in the malkhana. He has denied suggestion that the case property was not sent for chemical examiner CRCL New Delhi. He has denied suggestion that all entries were subsequently fabricated. 8.1 PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj has stated that since 2003 he was posted as Superintendent of Customs Kullu. He has stated that on 6.6.2003 he along with Inspector Vijay Kumar Superintendent Rup Singh Hawaldar Chaudhary Ram Constable Gulab Singh and Driver Om Parkash proceeded to Manali and thereafter to Vashisht. He has stated that at Vashisht, Inspector Vinay Kumar told him that house of Bahadur Singh was required to be searched instantly. He has stated that if immediate search was conducted charas could be recovered from house of the accused. He has further stated that on receiving said information they decided for immediate search of his house. He has stated that he was a Gazetted Officer. He has further stated that they left the vehicle along with driver at Vashisht and other party proceeded to the house of accused on foot. He has stated that on the way PW 4 Chaman Lal was associated as a witness by Inspector Vinay Kumar. He has stated that when they reached the house of accused a person named Sukh Dass was standing there and they confirmed about the house of the accused from him. He has stated that Sukh Dass was also requested to become a witness to which he agreed and he has stated that door of the accused was closed and it was knocked by Inspector Vinay Kumar. He has further stated that accused Bahadur Singh present in Court came out of the room and Inspector Vinay Kumar apprised the accused that they have an information that he had concealed charas in his house. He has further stated that police officials also apprised the accused that they intended to search the house of accused. He has stated that accused agreed to it. He has further stated that police officials also apprised the accused that they intended to search the house of accused. He has stated that accused agreed to it. He has further stated that thereafter Inspector Vinay Kumar asked the accused that if he intends to take the search of the raiding party he could take the search. He has further stated that the accused has refused to take the search of the raiding party. He has further stated that Constable Chaudhary and Constable Gulab Singh remained out side the door and other raiding party entered the room. He has stated that two ladies who were the wives of accused entered the room. He has further stated that Inspector Vinay Kumar asked the accused whether he has concealed the charas. He has stated that the accused remained silent for some period and thereafter told that he had concealed the charas in the upper storey of his house. He has further stated that in the upper storey there was one room and a kitchen. He has stated that accused Bahadur Singh went to the kitchen and they followed him. He has further stated that there was a vacant space in between roof and wall and from where two polythene bags were picked up by the accused and produced before Inspector Vinay Kumar. He has stated that Inspector Vinay Kumar tested the said material and the result was found positive of charas. He has further stated that thereafter house of the accused was searched and incriminating material was recovered. He has further stated that both packets were separately weighed. He has further stated that one packet was having 260 grams of charas and another was 600 grams. He has further stated that two samples of 25 grams each were taken out of two packets. He has stated that remaining charas was separately packed in each packet. He has further stated that samples and the remaining bulk parcels of charas were sealed with seal No. 264. He has stated that bigger parcels of alleged bulk charas are Ext P1 and Ext P2 and sample of parcels are Ext P3 and Ext P4. He has further stated that case property was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW2/A which bears his signatures as well as Sukh Dass and PW4 Chaman Lal as witnesses. He has stated that bigger parcels of alleged bulk charas are Ext P1 and Ext P2 and sample of parcels are Ext P3 and Ext P4. He has further stated that case property was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW2/A which bears his signatures as well as Sukh Dass and PW4 Chaman Lal as witnesses. He has further stated that thereafter memo of proceedings was prepared at the spot. He has stated that said proceedings were signed by him as well as by other witnesses and the accused also appended his signature thereon. He has stated that proceeding memo is Ext PW2/B. He has further stated that seal after use was handed over to him. He has stated that from there they came back to Kullu office along with accused. He has stated that accused made confessional statement regarding recovery of charas from his house. He has stated that he use to extract the charas from the hill top and use to sell it to the foreigner. He has further stated that charas was being sold to the foreigner by accused at Rs.250/- per Tola. He has stated that confessional statement of the accused is Ext.PW2/C. He has stated that confessional statement was written by Inspector Tarun Kumar in his presence and the same was signed by the accused. He has stated that confessional statement was read over to the accused after writing it. He has further stated that he had sent his own report Ext.PW2/E to ACC Pathankot and NCB Form was also filled in by Inspector Vinay Kumar at the spot. He has stated that Form-F was also sent to NCB Delhi, Chandigarh, Custom Head Quarter Amritsar and Pathankot. In cross examination he has stated that no independent witness was called when confessional statement was recorded. He has stated that statement of accused was recorded in Custom Office Kullu. He has further stated that no spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer. He has denied suggestion that the police officials did not visit the house of accused. He has denied suggestion that they had not given any offer to search the house of the accused. He has denied suggestion that PW4 Chaman Lal and Sukh Dass were not present at the spot. He has denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from the possession of the accused. He has denied suggestion that they had not given any offer to search the house of the accused. He has denied suggestion that PW4 Chaman Lal and Sukh Dass were not present at the spot. He has denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from the possession of the accused. He has denied suggestion that a false case has been fabricated against the accused. 8.2 PW3 Tarun Kumar has stated that he was posted as Inspector in Custom Office Kullu since June 2003. He has stated at that time he was Malkhana Incharge. He has stated that he has brought the original record before the Court and he has further stated that Inspector Vinay Kumar deposited six sealed packets in the Malkhana. He has further stated that one packet was 210 grams, second packet was 550 grams and four small packets were 25 grams each. He has further stated that two sealed samples were sent to CRCL New Delhi and the entry to this effect was recorded in Ext PW1/D. He has stated that the case property remained intact till the same remained in his custody. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that the case property was tampered by the police officials. 8.3 PW4 Chaman Lal has stated that on 6th June, 2003 he was in his PCO. He has stated that he did not know anything about the case. He has stated that officials of the Custom Department met him in his PCO and they told him that they had come in connection with some inquiry. He has further stated that the officials obtained his signatures on ten papers. He has stated that he did not accompany the police officials to anywhere. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. He has denied suggestion that the officials of the custom department told him that they have information that accused had concealed charas in his house. He has denied suggestion that he accompanied the officials of the Custom Department to the house of accused Bahadur Singh. He has denied suggestion that room and kitchen of the accused was searched by the officials of the Custom Department in his presence. He has denied suggestion that charas was recovered in the polythene packet. 8.4 PW5 Vinay Kumar has stated that in the month of June 2003 he was posted as Inspector Custom Kullu. He has denied suggestion that room and kitchen of the accused was searched by the officials of the Custom Department in his presence. He has denied suggestion that charas was recovered in the polythene packet. 8.4 PW5 Vinay Kumar has stated that in the month of June 2003 he was posted as Inspector Custom Kullu. He has stated that on 6th June, 2003 he proceeded to Manali in connection with patrolling and intelligence collection. He has further stated that Superintendent Sh K N Bhardwaj Driver Om Parkash and two Constables were also with him. He has stated that on the way PW4 Chaman Lal was associated with them. He has stated that he inquired from accused Bahadur Singh whether he had concealed narcotic substance on which the accused became perplexed. He has further stated that thereafter the accused moved towards his kitchen and they followed him. He has further stated that the accused kept two polythene packets between roof and wall in the corner of his house which was produced by the accused. He has further stated that charas contained in the packets was weighed. He has stated that one packet was having 260 grams charas and another 600 grams. He has stated that two samples of 25 grams charas were taken out from each packet and the remaining charas was packed and sealed separately. He has further stated that the seal after use was handed over to Superintendent K N Bhardwaj. He has stated that the case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW2/A. He has stated that after preparing the inventory of the case property he deposited the same in the Malkhana. He has stated that the case property was handed over to PW3 Tarun Kumar who was Incharge of the Malkhana. He has stated that the accused had also given confessional statement that charas was extracted by him. He has stated that the accused used to sell the charas to the foreigner. He has stated that on 7th June, 2003 he got released the case property from the malkhana and produced the same along with accused before the Magistrate. Application Ext PW5/B was moved by him to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu. He has stated that the accused used to sell the charas to the foreigner. He has stated that on 7th June, 2003 he got released the case property from the malkhana and produced the same along with accused before the Magistrate. Application Ext PW5/B was moved by him to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu. He has stated that order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is Ext PW5/C. He has stated that search and seizure was conducted by him under the direction and guidance of Superintendent Sh K N Bhardwaj. He has further stated that the case property was returned to him by the Magistrate and he again deposited the same in the malkhana. In cross examination he has stated that memo regarding the option of search of the house of the accused was also not prepared. He has further stated that memo of personal search was also not given to the accused and the same was also not prepared. He has denied suggestion that PW4 Chaman Lal and Sukh Dass were not associated in the search and their signatures were obtained by him later on. He has stated that he did not prepare the spot map. He has denied suggestion that he did not visit the spot. He has denied suggestion that no search of the house of the accused was conducted and no charas was recovered from the possession of the accused. He has denied suggestion that no document was prepared at the spot. He has also denied suggestion that the signatures of the witnesses were obtained on blank papers. He has denied suggestion that no confession was made by the accused before Superintendent K N Bhardwaj. He has denied suggestion that no test report and special seizure report were prepared. He has denied suggestion that all the documents were fabricated by him subsequently. He has denied suggestion that in order to please the Higher Authority the accused falsely implicated in the present case. He has also denied suggestion that he was not competent to conduct house search and seize any narcotic substance. The accused has taken the plea of innocence and did not lead any defence evidence. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that judgment of learned trial Court is based upon conjecture and surmises is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The accused has taken the plea of innocence and did not lead any defence evidence. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that judgment of learned trial Court is based upon conjecture and surmises is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case there are testimonies of direct eye witnesses on record namely PW2 KN Bhardwaj PW4 Chaman Lal and PW5 Vinay Kumar. PW2 and PW5 are the official witnesses and PW4 Chaman Lal is the independent eye witness. PW2 and PW5 have supported the prosecution story however independent witness PW4 Chaman Lal has not supported the prosecution case. In present case two views have emerged in the prosecution story. PW2 and PW5 have stated in positive manner that contraband was recovered from possession of the accused. On the contrary independent witness PW4 Chaman Lal has stated in positive manner that no contraband was recovered from possession of the accused in his presence. In the present case there is contradictory testimony of eye witness. In view of the contradictory testimony of eye witness two views have emerged in the present case. It is well settled law that if two views are possible one favourable to the accused should be adopted. 10. The testimony of corroborative witnesses, namely, PW1 and PW3 are not helpful to the prosecution. PW1 is the link witness and he has stated that contraband was deposited in the malkhana and thereafter he sent the same in a parcel to CRCL New Delhi for chemical examination. PW3 Tarun Kumar is also link witness and he has stated that he deposited the case property in malkhana. The testimony of PW1 and PW3 are not helpful to the prosecution in view of the contradictory testimony of independent witness namely PW4 Chaman Lal who has stated in positive manner that no recovery of charas was effected from possession of the accused in his presence. 11. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquittal of accused by learned trial Court is highly unjustified is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 11. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquittal of accused by learned trial Court is highly unjustified is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is the case of the prosecution that charas was recovered from the kitchen of the residential house of the accused from vacant space in between roof and wall in presence of PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj PW4 Chaman Lal and PW5 Vinay Kumar. PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj and PW5 Vinay Kumar are official witnesses and PW4 Chaman Lal is independent witness. In the present case, PW4 Chaman Lal independent witness did not support the prosecution story as alleged by the prosecution. PW4 Chaman Lal has stated in positive manner that no charas was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused in his presence. The testimonies of PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj, PW5 Vinay Kumar official witnesses and testimony of PW4 Chaman Lal are contradictory to each other. In the present case two views have emerged. Official witnesses have supported the case of prosecution whereas independent witness did not support the case of prosecution. It is well settled law that if two views have emerged in the prosecution case the view favourable to the accused has to be taken into consideration. (See. 1998(2) SLJ 1408 titled Shashi Pal and others vs. State of H.P. See 1993(1) SLJ 405 titled State of H.P. vs. Sudarshan Singh). 12. It is also well established principle of law that the appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible. (ii) 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 the trial court are perverse or otherwise unsustainable. (iii) The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible fact. (iv) The appellate Court is entitled to consider whether trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (See: AIR 1974 SC 2165 Balak Ram & Anr. (iv) The appellate Court is entitled to consider whether trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (See: AIR 1974 SC 2165 Balak Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P. See: (2002) 3 SCC 57 Allarakha K Mansuri v. State of Gujarat See: (2003) 1 SCC 398 Raghunath v. State of Haryana, See: AIR 2007 SC 3075 State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors. See: AIR 2008 SC 2066 S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. & Ors. See: (2008) 11 SCC 186 Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra See: (2009) 10 SCC 206 Arulvelu & Anr. v. State See: (2009) 16 SCC 98 Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. and See: (2010) 2 SCC 445 ) Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh.) 13. It was held in case reported in (2009) 4 SCC 271 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne @ Baijnath & Ors that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and when the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and appellate Court should also bear in mind that trial Court's acquittal bolsters presumption of innocence of accused. It was held in case cited supra that interference with the decision of the learned trial court in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided. 14. Another submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that accused had given the confessional statement in present case and on this ground, appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The accused has denied in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had given confessional statement. The confessional statement relied upon by prosecution is retracted by accused. It is well settled law that confession made before police officer is inadmissible evidence as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also well settled that confession made by accused to the police officer is protected under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (See AIR 1966 SC 119 , titled Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar). It is also well settled that confession made by accused to the police officer is protected under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (See AIR 1966 SC 119 , titled Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar). In present case, confession has been recorded by the Investigating Officer himself but same is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In this case it is found that confession recorded by custom officer under Section 67 of the Act is not supported by independent witness namely PW4 Chaman Lal. Hence in view of the testimony of independent witness qua confessional statement it is not expedient in the interest of justice to convict the accused on the basis of confessional statement recorded by the custom officer under Section 67 of the Act. Even the contents of Panchnama i.e. confessional statement prepared by the prosecution has not been supported by independent witness namely PW4 Chaman Lal. He denied the contents of Panchnama i.e. confessional statement and when he appeared in Court PW4 Chaman Lal has stated that contents of Panchnama i.e. confessional statement were not recorded in his presence. 15. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that accused be convicted on the basis of documentary evidence i.e. extract of Malkhana register, seizure memo, Panchnama, (confessional statement) and chemical examiner report adduced by the prosecution is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned because there is contradiction between the testimony of independent witness namely Chaman Lal who is eye witness of alleged confessional statement and contents of documents. Hence in view of contradictory testimony of eye witness of alleged confessional document it is not expedient in the interest of justice to rely upon the above stated documents produced by the prosecution in present case. It is well settled that confessional statement cannot be the basis for conviction unless it is true and voluntarily. It was held in case reported in AIR 1952 SC 354 Palvinder Kaur vs. The State of Punjab that confession or admission must either accepted as a whole or rejected and it was further held that Court cannot accept only the inculpatory part while rejecting the exculpatory part. It was also held that extra judicial confession recorded by the police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 16. It was also held that extra judicial confession recorded by the police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 16. Another submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that compliance of Section 42 of the Act was proved on record is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is the case of the prosecution that compliance under Section 42 of the Act was conducted qua recovery of contraband from accused but when PW4 Chaman Lal independent witness appeared in the witness box he has specifically stated that no contraband was recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of accused in his presence. 17. Another submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that as per testimony of PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj and PW5 Vinay Kumar it is proved on record that charas was recovered from the residential house of the accused is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is the case of the prosecution that PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj PW4 Chaman Lal and PW5 Vinay Kumar were present at the time of recovery of charas from the house of accused but as per the version of PW4 Chaman Lal independent witness, no recovery of charas was effected in his presence, which again creates doubt in the mind of the Court. 18. Another submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned in view of the testimony of independent witness PW4 Chaman Lal. It was held in case reported in (2005) 9 SCC 765 titled Anjlus Dungdung vs. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was also held in case reported in AIR 1979 SC 1382 titled State (Delhi Administration) vs. Gulazarilal Tandon that even where the circumstances raise a serious suspicion against the accused it cannot take the place of legal proof. (See AIR 1967 SC 520 , Charan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & AIR 1971 SC 1898 Gian Mahtani and another vs. State of Maharashtra). Even PW5 Vinay Kumar when appeared in the witness box has stated that no spot map and no memo regarding search of residential house of the accused were prepared in his presence. 19. In present case two views have emerged. Even PW5 Vinay Kumar when appeared in the witness box has stated that no spot map and no memo regarding search of residential house of the accused were prepared in his presence. 19. In present case two views have emerged. PW2 K.N. Bhardwaj and PW5 Vinay Kumar have stated that charas was recovered from the residential house of the accused in their presence but PW4 Chaman Lal independent witness has stated that no charas was recovered from the accused in his presence. In view of two views in present case we hold that it is expedient in the ends of justice to adopt the view which is favourable to the accused. 20. In present case the accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in judgments reported in (2010) 1 SCC 94 Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 21. Appeal stands disposed of so also pending application(s) if any.