Judgment : P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed by the State under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment passed by learned Special Judge Fast Track Court Mandi under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2007 titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shesh Ram. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 6.11.2006 at 3.45 PM at road Katipari near Padhar District Mandi (H.P.) accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 1 Kg. of opium. It is alleged by prosecution that accused was coming from Ghoghar Dhar side towards Padhar carrying one polythene envelope in his right hand and when he saw the police officials he turned back and tried to escape. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused was nabbed by police personnel with the help of PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh who were present at the spot by chance. It is alleged by prosecution that on suspicion of having committed criminal offence PW9 HC Prem Pal obtained consent of accused in writing Ext.PW1/A in presence of PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh by asking the accused whether he intended to be searched before the Magistrate or gazetted officer. It is alleged by prosecution that accused agreed to give his search before the police officials. It is alleged by prosecution that police officials have also given their own search and memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared in presence of PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW9 HC Prem Pal carried out search of polythene envelope and on checking of envelope one carton box of sweet over which Manpasand was written in English was found. It is alleged by prosecution that on opening of carton box Ext.P5 one polythene envelope containing opium Ext.P6 was found and further alleged that thereafter opium recovered from the accused was weighed with the help of weights and scale and it was found 1 Kg and thereafter two samples of 25-25 grams were drawn. It is alleged by prosecution that both samples were put in separate polythene envelopes and were wrapped with newspaper and were packed in cloth parcels and residue opium was also put into same carton box along with polythene envelope and was packed in cloth parcel. It is alleged by prosecution that both samples were put in separate polythene envelopes and were wrapped with newspaper and were packed in cloth parcels and residue opium was also put into same carton box along with polythene envelope and was packed in cloth parcel. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter all parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘A’ and further alleged that NCB form in triplicate Ext.PW9/A was filled up at the spot from Sr. No. 1 to 8 by PW9 HC Prem Pal and PW8 Sub Inspector Kapoor Chand also filled column Nos. 9 to 11 of NCB form. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter both samples and parcels containing opium along with NCB form were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW9/C in presence of PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh. It is alleged by prosecution that sample seal was obtained on separate piece of cloth i.e. Ext.PW1/E. It is alleged by prosecution that seal after use was handed over to PW1 Halku Ram. It is also alleged by prosecution that copy of recovery memo Ext.PW1/C was given to accused free of cost in presence of witnesses and thereafter PW9 HC Prem Pal handed over ruka to C. Vidya Sagar at 6 PM for handing it over to SHO P.S. Joginder nagar. It is alleged by prosecution that on receipt of ruka Ext.PW9/B ASI Durga Dass made an endorsement over the same and recorded FIR Ext.PW10/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW9 HC Prem Pal prepared site plan at the spot which is Ext.PW9/C in presence of witnesses. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW9 HC Prem Pal had given notice of arrest in writing Ext.PW1/H and thereafter PW9 HC Prem Pal handed over the case file along with three parcels bearing seal impression ‘A’, NCB form in triplicate and sample seal to PW9 Sub Inspector Kapoor Chand and thereafter PW8 ASI Kapoor Chand resealed both sample parcels and parcel containing residue opium with seal impression ‘K’ in four numbers and filled up the column of NCB form at Sr. No. 9 to 11 which is Ext.PW8/B. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW8 SI Kapoor Chand deposited both sample parcels and parcel containing residue opium, two samples seals ‘A’ and ‘K’, NCB form in triplicate and other related documents with MHC Milap Chand. No. 9 to 11 which is Ext.PW8/B. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW8 SI Kapoor Chand deposited both sample parcels and parcel containing residue opium, two samples seals ‘A’ and ‘K’, NCB form in triplicate and other related documents with MHC Milap Chand. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter special report Ext.PW5/A was sent to SDPO Sarkaghat through C. Chaman Lal No. 90. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW6 HC Milap Chand sent the sample parcel sealed with seal impressions ‘K’ and ‘A’ NCB form in triplicate and other related documents to CFSL Chandigarh through PW7 C. Roshan Lal vide RC No. 145 of 2006 copy of which is Ext.PW6/B. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter on receipt of report of CFSL Chandigarh Ext.PW8/C PW8 SI Kapoor Chand prepared challan and presented the same in Court. 3 Learned trial Court framed charge against the accused on dated 23.8.2007 under Section 18-61 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case:- Sr. No. Name of Witness PW1 Bhupinder Singh PW2 Puran Chand PW3 Thakur Dass PW4 HC Prakash Chand PW5 HC Ramesh Chand PW6 ASI Ghanshyam Chand PW7 C. Jagdish Chand PW8 Prittam Chand PW9 ASI Mast Ram PW10 ASI Durga Dass 4.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr. No. Description. Ex.PW1/A. Parcel containing opium Ext.P1. Ex.PW1/B. Parcel containing opium Ext.P2 Ex.PW1/C Recovery memo Ex.P3 Gunny bag Ex.P4 Opium Ex.PW2/A Endorsement on Tatima Ex.PW3/A Sample seal taken on piece of cloth Ex.PW3/B Tatima Ex.PW3/C Jamabandi Ext.PW4/A. Abstract of register No.19 Ext.PW4/B Abstract of R.C. Ext.PW5/A Writing and signatures of Addl.S.P. Mandi made on special report. Ex.PW5/B Endrosement Ext.PW5/C Affidavit of Rajesh Dharmani Ext.PW6/A Endorsement made over ruka Ext.Pw6/B FIR Ext.PW8/A Sample seal taken on piece of cloth Ext.PW8/B NCB form Ext.PW10/A Ruka Ext.PW10/B Site plan Ext.PW10/C NCB form Ext.PX Report of CFSL Chandigarh 5. Learned trial Court acquitted accused qua offence punishable under Section 18-61 of ND&PS Act 1985. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Special Judge Fast Track Court Mandi State filed present appeal. 6. Learned trial Court acquitted accused qua offence punishable under Section 18-61 of ND&PS Act 1985. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Special Judge Fast Track Court Mandi State filed present appeal. 6. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of H.P. and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 7. Question that arises for determination in present appeal 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 by way of acquitting accused. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 8.1. PW1 Halku Ram has stated that about one and half years ago he had gone to office of Horticulture Department Joginder Nagar and was waiting for bus around 5/6 PM near P.S. Joginder Nagar. He has stated that one police official who was known to him called him to police station and told that some contraband was recovered from someone and further stated that police officials told him to sign the papers. He has stated that contraband was not recovered from accused in his presence. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. He has stated that accused present in Court is not known to him. He has stated that he studied up to third class and he knows only to sign. He has stated that accused did not sign in his presence. He has denied suggestion that memo regarding personal search was prepared in his presence. He has denied suggestion that opium was weighed and two samples of 25 grams each were separated and sealed with seal ‘A’. He has denied suggestion that NCB form in triplicate was filled in his presence. He has denied suggestion that accused is running his shop at Padhar and in order to save him he has deposed falsely. He has denied suggestion that all parcels were prepared at the spot. He has stated that he could not read Hindi. He has stated that he could not state as to what was kept in parcel Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 as they were already sealed. 8.2 PW2 Biri Singh has stated that accused present in Court is not known to him. He has denied suggestion that all parcels were prepared at the spot. He has stated that he could not read Hindi. He has stated that he could not state as to what was kept in parcel Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 as they were already sealed. 8.2 PW2 Biri Singh has stated that accused present in Court is not known to him. He has stated that about one and half years back he had gone to Joginder Nagar in office of SDM Civil to renew his licence. He has stated that at about 5 PM he was going to bus stand Joginder Nagar to catch the bus for his village. He has stated that one police personnel who was known to him came to him and told that police officials have recovered some contraband. The witness was declared hostile by prosecution. He has denied suggestion that all parcels were prepared at the spot. He has denied suggestion that in order to save the accused he has deposed falsely. 8.3 PW3 HHC Chaman Lal has stated during the year 2006 he was posted as HHC in P.S. Joginder Nagar and on dated 8.11.2006 Inspector SHO Kapoor Chand handed over to him special report to submit the same to SDPO Sarkaghat which has been handed over to SDPO by him on the same day at 10 AM in his office and SDPO Sarkaghat made his endorsement on special report in his presence. He has stated that special report is Mark X. He has denied suggestion that he did not submit the special report to SDPO Sarkaghat. 8.4 PW4 C. Vidya Sagar has stated that during the year 2006 he was posted as constable in CIA Staff Mandi and on dated 6.11.2006 he along with HC Abhimanyu, HC Karam Chand, HC Prem Pal, HHC Padam Singh, C. Baldev Singh were on patrolling duty at Katipari near Padhar at about 3.45 PM. He has stated that one person came towards Katipari and when he saw the police he turned back and tried to run away. He has stated that in the meantime Biri Singh and Halku Ram also came and they were associated in the investigation. He has further stated that accused person was carrying one polythene bag in his hands and accused was given option whether he intended to be searched before the Magistrate or gazetted officer. He has stated that in the meantime Biri Singh and Halku Ram also came and they were associated in the investigation. He has further stated that accused person was carrying one polythene bag in his hands and accused was given option whether he intended to be searched before the Magistrate or gazetted officer. He has stated that police officials have also given their personal search to accused in presence of witnesses. He has further stated that box of sweets over which word “Manpasand” was written was searched and on checking of sweet box one polythene envelope containing black coloured article was recovered. He has stated that opium was kept in polythene envelope and recovery memo was prepared. He has stated that thereafter contraband was measured through scales and weights and on weighment it was found 1 Kg and thereafter two samples of 25 grams each were took out and thereafter both samples were packed in parcel and remaining bulk was also packed and parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘A’. He has stated that thereafter sample seal was took on piece of cloth and witnesses Halku Ram and Biri Singh signed the same. He has stated that samples were sent to CFSL Chandigarh along with NCB form. He has stated that after registration of FIR he handed over the case file to I.O. at Ghatsani. He has denied suggestion that opium was not recovered from accused in his presence. He has denied suggestion that no ruka was taken by him to P.S. Joginder nagar. He has denied suggestion that all documents and parcels were prepared by I.O. in P.S. Joginder Nagar. He has denied suggestion that witnesses Halku Ram and Biri Singh were forced to sign the documents at police station Joginder Nagar and also denied suggestion that nothing was recovered from accused. 8.5 PW5 HC Raj Kumar has stated that he remained posted as Reader to Dy. S.P. Sarkaghat w.e.f. April 2006 to November 2007 and on dated 8.11.2006 special report was handed over to him copy of which is Ext.PW5/A. He has stated that he made the entry of special report in the register at Sr. No. 32 at page No. 12 which is in his own hand. He has stated that he also made endorsement on special report Ext.PW5/B which bears his signatures. No. 32 at page No. 12 which is in his own hand. He has stated that he also made endorsement on special report Ext.PW5/B which bears his signatures. He has further stated that thereafter SDPO Bimal Gupta also made endorsement over special report Ext.PW5/C. He has stated that he identified the signatures and hand writing of SDPO Sarkaghat because he worked under him. He has stated that affidavit of Bimal Gupta is Ext.PW5/D which bears signatures of Dy. S.P. He has denied suggestion that special report was handed over to him at later stage and dates mentioned are ante-time. 8.6 PW6 HC Milap Singh has stated that during the year 2006 he remained posted as MHC P.S. Joginder Nagar and on dated 6.11.2006 SI/SHO Kapoor Chand deposited case property i.e. one parcel Ext.P1 containing opium, two small parcels Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 containing opium. He has stated that sample seals ‘A’ and ‘K’, NCB form in triplicate and other related documents also deposited. He has stated that he recorded the entry in register No. 19 at Sr. No. 835 which is in his hand. He has further stated that on dated 17.11.2006 he sent sample seals A and K, NCB form in triplicate and other related documents to CFSL Chandigarh through C. Roshan Lal No. 429. He has stated that copy of RC No. 145/06 is Ext.PW6/B. He has further stated that sample was also earlier sent on dated 9.11.2006 but same could not be deposited as there was dispute between CFSL Chandigarh and State Government. He has stated that case property Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 were deposited by SHO. He has denied suggestion that entry of date and time was recorded later on. He has denied suggestion that in the year 2006 he was not posted as MHC. He has denied suggestion that case property was not deposited with him. He has denied suggestion that on dated 12.11.2006 no sample was deposited with him by C. Roshan Lal. He has denied suggestion that he has prepared forged documents. He has denied suggestion that in the year 2006 he was not posted as MHC. He has denied suggestion that case property was not deposited with him. He has denied suggestion that on dated 12.11.2006 no sample was deposited with him by C. Roshan Lal. He has denied suggestion that he has prepared forged documents. 8.7 PW7 C. Roshan Lal has stated that he is posted as Constable in P.S. Joginder nagar since June 2005 and on dated 9.11.2005 MHC Milap Chand handed over to him one sample of FIR No. 265 of 2006 containing opium, seals with seal impressions ‘A’ and ‘K’ along with sample seals and also NCB form in triplicate and other related documents to hand over the same in CFSL Chandigarh. He has stated that he reached CFSL Chandigarh on dated 9.11.2006 but officials posted in CFSL Chandigarh did not entertain the samples of H.P. Government. He has stated that thereafter he handed over the samples along with related documents to Milap Chand and told him that CFSL Chandigarh refused to take the samples of H.P. Government. He has stated that thereafter again on dated 17.11.2006 MHC Milap Chand handed over to him one sample containing opium 25 grams, sealed with impressions ‘A’ and ‘K’, NCB form in triplicate and other related documents vide RC No. 145 of 2006 and directed him to deposit the same in CFSL Chandigarh and he deposited the case property on same day and obtained receipt from the office of CFSL Chandigarh and handed over the receipt to MHC Milap Chand. He has denied suggestion that he had not gone to Chandigarh with samples and also denied suggestion that he did not deposit the samples in the office of CFSL Chandigarh. 8.8 PW8 Sub Inspector Kapoor Chand has stated that he remained posted as SHO P.S. Joginder Nagar in the year 2006 and on dated 6.11.2006 at about 9.30 PM HC Prem Pal I.O. CIA Staff handed over to him the case file along with two parcels bearing four numbers of seal of A and NCB form. He has stated that he resealed two samples Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 with seal ‘K’ in four numbers and also resealed the bulk parcel with seal ‘K’ in four numbers. He has stated that he also filled column Nos. 9 to 11 of NCB form Ext.PW8/A in his hand which bears his signatures. He has stated that he resealed two samples Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 with seal ‘K’ in four numbers and also resealed the bulk parcel with seal ‘K’ in four numbers. He has stated that he also filled column Nos. 9 to 11 of NCB form Ext.PW8/A in his hand which bears his signatures. He has stated that after resealing the case property he obtained facsimile of seals over piece of cloth Ext.PW8/B. He has stated that thereafter he deposited the case property i.e. two samples and one parcel of bulk along with NCB form in triplicate and other related documents with MHC Milap Chand. He has stated that he also sent the special report Ext.PW5/A to SDPO Sarkaghat. He has stated that thereafter he prepared challan and presented the same in Court. He has denied suggestion that I.O. had prepared all documents in police station. 8.9 PW9 HC Prem Pal has stated that he remained posted as I.O. in CIA Staff Mandi during the year 2006 and on dated 6.11.2006 he along with HC Abhimanyu, HC Karam Chand, HHC Padam Singh, C. Vidya Sagar and C. Baldev were on patrolling duty. He has stated that at about 3.45 PM accused came from Ghoghar Dhar towards Padhar carrying one polythene envelope in his right hand and when he saw police personnel he turned back and tried to escape and thereafter accused was nabbed by police officials. He has stated that accused disclosed his name as Shesh Ram. He has stated that on suspicion accused was searched and consent of accused was obtained whether accused intended to be searched before the Magistrate or gazetted officer. He has stated that on search black liquid type substance was found kept by accused in polythene envelope and same was found to be opium. He has stated that all parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘A’ and sample parcels were also prepared and remaining opium was kept in another sealed parcel. He has stated that NCB form in triplicate was also prepared and facsimile of seal impression ‘A’ was also prepared. He has stated that both samples and parcels of samples and another parcel of bulk and opium along with NCB form were deposited vide recovery memo Ext.PW1/C. He has stated that signatures of independent witnesses namely Halku Ram and Biri Singh were also obtained. He has stated that both samples and parcels of samples and another parcel of bulk and opium along with NCB form were deposited vide recovery memo Ext.PW1/C. He has stated that signatures of independent witnesses namely Halku Ram and Biri Singh were also obtained. He has further stated that sample seal was also obtained on separate piece of cloth. He has stated that sample seal was handed over to Halku Ram after use. He has stated that he also prepared site plan Ext.PW9/C and also recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. He has denied suggestion that he used to demand eatable articles free of cost from the accused. He has denied suggestion that when accused refused to supply free eatable articles to him he planted false case against the accused. He has denied suggestion that all documents were prepared in police station. He has denied suggestion that he has recorded statements of witnesses according to his own will. 8.10 PW10 ASI Durga Dass has stated that he remained posted as I.O. in Police Station Joginder Nagar in November 2006 and on dated 6.11.2006 ruka Ext.PW9/B written by HC Prem Pal was received in police station Joginder Nagar which was brought by C. Vidya Sagar and he made endorsement Ext.PW10/A and signed the same. He has stated that on the basis of ruka Ext.PW9/B FIR Ext.PW10/B was registered which bears his signatures and thereafter he handed over the case file to Vidya Sagar to be handed over to HC Prem Pal at the spot. He has stated that thereafter case file was again handed over to him on dated 7.11.2006 for verifying the place and source of contraband. He has stated that thereafter during investigation Investigating Officer took him to Dyna park and accused told that he purchased the contraband from unknown person at place Dyna park. He has stated that thereafter he handed over the case file to SI Kapoor Chand. He has denied suggestion that he did not receive ruka in police station through C. Vidya Sagar. He has denied suggestion that ruka was prepared in police station. He has denied suggestion that ruka and FIR are forged documents. He has denied suggestion that he did not conduct any investigation in present case. 9. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in present case. He has denied suggestion that ruka and FIR are forged documents. He has denied suggestion that he did not conduct any investigation in present case. 9. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in present case. Accused has stated that I.O. used to demand eatable items from his shop free of cost and he denied to supply the eatable items free of cost to I.O. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. 10. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is the case of prosecution that contraband was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of accused on dated 6.11.2006 at 3.45 PM at Katipari in presence of independent witnesses namely PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh. We have carefully perused the testimonies of PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh. PW1 Halku Ram when appeared in Court has specifically stated that opium contraband was not recovered from accused in his presence and further stated that accused present in Court is not known to him. PW1 Halku Ram did not identify the accused present in Court. Another independent witness PW2 Biri Singh when appeared in witness box has stated in positive manner that he does not know the accused present in Court and no contraband was recovered from accused in his presence. Marginal witnesses of Ext.PW1/C did not support the prosecution case as alleged by prosecution and both witnesses have stated in positive manner that no opium was recovered from conscious and exclusive possession of accused in their presence. Both witnesses have also refused to identify the accused in Court. 11. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that there was no prior enmity between the accused and police officials and learned trial Court has illegally discarded the testimonies of police officials is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimonies of PW4 C. Vidya Sagar and PW9 HC Prem Pal. We have carefully perused the testimonies of PW4 C. Vidya Sagar and PW9 HC Prem Pal. We are of the opinion that testimony of PW9 Prem Pal is not sufficient to convict the accused because PW9 H.C. Prem Pal is Investigating Officer and is interested witness and is not independent witness. We are also of the opinion that testimony of PW4 C. Vidya Sagar is also not sufficient to convict the accused in present case because PW4 V. Vidya Sagar is not witness of seizure memo Ext.PW1/C placed on record. It is well settled law that contents of seizure memo could be proved by marginal witnesses only. PW4 C. Vidya Sagar is not marginal witness of seizure memo Ext.PW1/C and in view of the fact that PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh who are marginal witnesses of seizure memo Ext.PW1/C did not support the prosecution case we are of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused simply on testimony of PW4 C. Vidya Sagar because PW4 C. Vidya Sagar is not marginal witness of seizure memo Ext.PW1/C. There is material contradiction between the testimonies of PW1 Halku Ram, PW2 Biri Singh who are eye witnesses of incident and PW4 C. Vidya Sagar. It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to accused should be adopted by Court in criminal case. Other prosecution witnesses are only corroborative witnesses. It is well settled criminal law that eye witnesses of criminal offence are substantive witnesses and conviction in criminal cases should be given on the testimonies of substantive eye witnesses except in criminal cases of circumstantial evidence. 12. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that testimonies of PW4 C. Vidya Sagar and PW9 HC Prem Pal proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence under ND&PS Act is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that when there is confliction between testimonies of official eye witnesses and independent eye witnesses then it is not expedient in the ends to convict the accused in criminal case because prosecution is under legal obligation to prove the criminal case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that when there is confliction between testimonies of official eye witnesses and independent eye witnesses then it is not expedient in the ends to convict the accused in criminal case because prosecution is under legal obligation to prove the criminal case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Onus is on prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and onus is not upon the accused to prove his innocence as per criminal law of jurisprudence. 13. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that evidence is to be appreciated on broad principle of probability is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that principle of probability is not applicable in criminal proceedings. The prosecution should prove its criminal case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused by way of adducing positive cogent and reliable evidence. In present case PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh have demolished the case of prosecution and testimonies of PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh have created doubt in our mind qua recovery of opium from conscious and exclusive possession of accused as alleged by prosecution. 14. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court has erred in embarking upon non-production of Rapat Roznamcha dated 6.11.2006 is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that prosecution was under legal obligation to connect the accused with commission of criminal offence and we are of the opinion that rapat roznamcha document was very material document for just decision of case. We are of the opinion that sole non-production of rapat roznamcha is not ground for acquittal of accused by learned trial Court but learned trial Court has acquitted the accused because PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh eye witnesses of alleged incident did not support the prosecution story as alleged by prosecution. 15. We are of the opinion that sole non-production of rapat roznamcha is not ground for acquittal of accused by learned trial Court but learned trial Court has acquitted the accused because PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh eye witnesses of alleged incident did not support the prosecution story as alleged by prosecution. 15. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh have admitted their signatures upon document Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B, Ext.PW1/C, Ext.PW1/E, Ext.PW1/F, Ext.PW1/G and Ext.PW1/H and residue Ext.P1 and sample parcels Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 and no pressure was given to marginal witnesses by police officials and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that contents of documents should be proved as per testimonies of marginal witnesses. We are of the opinion that simply admitting the signatures on documents did not mean that contents of documents are automatically also proved. We are of the opinion that contents of documents should be proved as per testimonies of marginal witnesses as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. We are of the opinion that Indian Evidence Act 1872 is operative upon criminal proceedings unless specifically barred under any special Act. In present case PW1 Halku Ram and PW2 Biri Singh when appeared in witnesses box have specifically denied the contents of documents in their testimonies. PW1 when appeared in witness box has stated that he could not read Hindi and all documents were prepared in Hindi by prosecution. It is well settled law that testimony of the witness should not be read in isolation but should be read as a whole in order to arrive at definite conclusion by criminal Courts. It is well settled law that criminal Courts are under legal obligation to take out grain from the chaff. In present case entire investigation is conducted by complainant himself as per FIR Ext.PW10/B. The complainant in present case is PW9 HC Prem Pal and entire investigation was conducted by complainant in present case. It is not the case of prosecution that no other investigating officer was available. In present case entire investigation is conducted by complainant himself as per FIR Ext.PW10/B. The complainant in present case is PW9 HC Prem Pal and entire investigation was conducted by complainant in present case. It is not the case of prosecution that no other investigating officer was available. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 titled Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan held that when whole material investigation was conducted by complainant himself in the criminal case then same was against the criminal jurisprudence. We are of the opinion that grave miscarriage of justice has been caused to the accused when entire material investigation in present case was conducted by PW9 HC Prem Pal complainant himself. Also see 1993 Criminal Law Journal 3716 titled Gyan Chand vs. State of Rajasthan. 16. In present case no original seal has been produced by prosecution in Court in order to compare facsimile of seal impression upon sample parcel of opium and upon parcel in which remaining bulk of opium was kept. It was held in case reported in Latest HLJ 2011 HP 1195 (DB) titled Nanha vs. State that if original seal is not produced then conviction could not be recorded. In present case original seal was not produced in Court and seal on sample sent for chemical analysis could not be compared with original seal which is fatal to prosecution. Even no FIR filed to prove that original seal was lost. As per prosecution PW9 HC Prem Pal handed over the seal to PW1 Halku Ram after use but when PW1 Halku Ram appeared in witness box no suggestion in positive manner was given to PW1 Halku Ram that original seal after use was handed over to PW1 Halku Ram. It is well settled law that suspicion is not substitute for proof. (See AIR 1993 SC 1892 titled Varkey Joseph vs. State of Kerala and 1996(2) SLJ 890 titled Mulak Raj and others vs. State of Haryana). It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to accused should be adopted in criminal case. It is well settled law that suspicion is not substitute for proof. (See AIR 1993 SC 1892 titled Varkey Joseph vs. State of Kerala and 1996(2) SLJ 890 titled Mulak Raj and others vs. State of Haryana). It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to accused should be adopted in criminal case. (See: 1998 (2) S.L.J. 1408 Shashi Pal and others vs. State of HP, See 1993(1) SLJ 405 titled State of H.P. vs. Sudarshan Singh, See 1995 (3) SLJ 1819 titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Inder Jeet and others, See 1995(4) SLJ 2728 titled State of H.P. vs. Diwana and others). It is well settled principle of law that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court. (See (2013)2 SCC 89 titled Mookkiah and another vs. State See 2011(11) SCC 666 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar, See AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 78 titled Surendra vs. State of Rajasthan, See 2012(1) SCC 602 State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta.) It is also well settled principle of law (i) That Appellant Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible though the view of the appellate Court may be more probable. (ii) That while dealing with a judgment of acquittal Appellant 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 considered any admissible evidence. (iv) That learned trial Court took into consideration evidence contrary to law. (See AIR 1974 SC 2165 titled Balak Ram and another vs. State of U.P., See (2002)3 SCC 57 , titled Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, See (2003)1 SCC 398 Raghunath vs. State of Haryana, See AIR 2007 SC 3075 State of U.P. vs. Ram Veer Singh and others, See AIR 2008 SC 2066 (2008) 11 SCC 186 S. Rama Krishna vs. S. Rami Raddy (D) by his LRs. & others. & others. Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009)10 SCC 206 titled Arulvelu and another vs. State, (2009)16 SCC 98 Perla Somasekhara Reddy and others vs. State of A.P. and (2010)2 SCC 445 titled Ram Singh @ Chhaju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.) It was held in case reported in (2015)1 SCC 737 titled Dilawar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana that appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless approach of learned trial Court is vitiated by manifest illegality. It was held that appellate Court would not interfere with order of acquittal merely because on evaluation of evidence different plausible view would arise. It was held that appellate Court would interfere only under substantial and compelling reasons in criminal case when findings of learned criminal Court are based upon inadmissible evidence or when findings of learned Criminal Court are based upon material irregularity or when findings of learned Criminal Court are based upon misreading of evidence or when findings of learned Criminal Court are based upon conjecture and surmises. 17. In view of above stated facts, we affirm the judgment passed by learned trial Court and dismiss the appeal filed by State. We hold that learned trial Court did not commit any miscarriage of justice and it is further held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. Appeal stands disposed of. File of learned trial Court along with certified copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.