JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. State has appealed against the judgment dated 31.5.2008 of the Presiding Officer (Special Judge), Fast Track Court, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No.3/2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Ram, challenging the acquittal of respondent Jai Ram (hereinafter referred to as the accused) of the offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 20-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 17.2.2006, SI Shamsher Singh (PW-9), who was posted as SHO of Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, was on patrol and nakabandi duty towards Nagwain, alongwith HC Balak Ram (PW-10), Constable Ranjeet Singh (PW-5), Constable Sanjay Kumar (PW-4). At about 4.30 a.m., he received secret information that accused was dealing in the business of Charas. Accordingly, report (Ex.PW-9/A), prepared by him, was sent through Constable Ranjeet Singh, which was received in the Office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi. Thereafter, on foot, police proceeded to village Silh and by associating two independent witnesses Shri Kuldeep Singh (PW-2) and Shri Durga Ram (PW-3) and after informing the accused of his statutory rights and obtaining his consent (Ex. PW-2/A), searched his house, from where 700 grams of Charas, concealed in a wooden box, was recovered. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn. Samples as also bulk parcel were sealed with seal impression ‘T’. Constable Sanjay Kumar took Rukka (Ex. PW-8/A), on the basis of which FIR No.23/06, dated 17.2.2006 (Ex.PW-8/B), for commission of offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 20-61-85 of the Act, was registered at Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. NCB form (Ex. PW-9/C) was filled up on the spot; accused was arrested; and with the completion of necessary formalities on the spot, contraband substance was deposited with MHC Raj Kumar (PW-8), who, through HC Malkiat Singh (PW-1), sent the samples for chemical analysis to CTL, Chandigarh. Report (Ex.PW-9/K) was taken on record. 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. Accused was charged for having committed an offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 20-61-85 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. 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. Accused was charged for having committed an offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 20-61-85 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocates General, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Ms Leena Guleria, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. 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 no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 8. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: “(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under S. 417, Criminal P.c., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in – ‘Sheo Swarup v. Emperor’, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: “Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice.” ” 9. In the instant case, we find that independent witnesses Shri Kuldeep Singh and Shri Durga Ram have not supported the prosecution case at all. They are not local residents of the area. They are also not persons of standing in society. They are also not the elected representatives of the area. Prosecution has failed to explain as to why they were associated in carrying out search and seizure operations. It is the case of SI Shamsher Singh that in the village of the accused, 10-15 families reside. Noticeably, Naaka was set up on a motorable road, from where elected representatives or respectable persons could have been associated. Prosecution has failed to explain as to why they were associated in carrying out search and seizure operations. It is the case of SI Shamsher Singh that in the village of the accused, 10-15 families reside. Noticeably, Naaka was set up on a motorable road, from where elected representatives or respectable persons could have been associated. It is not the case of the prosecution that on account of urgency, out of fear of the accused fleeing away, only Shri Kuldeep Singh and Shri Durga Ram could be associated for carrying out search and seizure operations. Unanimously, both the independent witnesses have deposed that no recovery was effected in their presence. In fact, Shri Durga Ram did not visit the village of the accused. He has categorically deposed that his signatures were obtained by the police in Police Station, Aut. 10. Shri Durga Ram states that he was called by the son of the accused to the village. Through the uncontroverted testimony of this witness, it stands established that accused has three sons, who are married and the entire family reside together in the same house. None has come forward to establish that the house was exclusively owned or possessed by the accused. Possibility of involvement of other members of the family of the accused could not be ruled out. Be that as it may, through the testimony of independent witnesses, version other than the one which the prosecution wants the Court to believe, has emerged. 11. 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. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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]. 14. Apex Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, held as under:- "6. ... 14. 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." 15. In view of the aforesaid statement of law, we shall now examine the testimonies of police officials present on the spot. 16. Even otherwise, when we peruse the testimonies of Constable Sanjay Kumar, SI Shamsher Singh and HC Balak Ram, we do not find the prosecution case to have been established, beyond reasonable doubt. Version so deposed by the police officials is absolutely uninspiring in confidence. Witnesses cannot be said to be wholly reliable. Contradictions, which are glaring, render the genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful, if not false. Presence of some of the police officials itself appears to be in doubt. 17. SI Shamsher Singh states that he received information of the accused dealing in Charas. Accordingly, he prepared report (Ex. PW-9/A) and through Constable Ranjeet Singh sent it to the Office of concerned Additional Superintendent of Police. He is categorical that only he received secret information. We find this fact to have been controverted by Constable Sanjay Kumar, according to whom it was he who received the secret information. 18. Constable Sanjay Kumar states that he was present at the time when search and seizure operations were carried out by the police party. Significantly, he does not even remember the distance of the house of the accused from Nagwain. Whether it was 1 km, 5 kms or 10 kms, this he is not able to disclose even by guess work. Constable Sanjay Kumar states that he was present at the time when search and seizure operations were carried out by the police party. Significantly, he does not even remember the distance of the house of the accused from Nagwain. Whether it was 1 km, 5 kms or 10 kms, this he is not able to disclose even by guess work. He is not even aware of the villages, which the police party crossed, while reaching the house of the accused. He is not even aware of the timing, when the search and seizure operations were conducted. We find the witness to be confronted with his previous statement, recorded under the provisions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for proving the exaggerations and embellishments in his statement. His version of having received secret information or having reached the spot sometime in the early hours of the morning or the accused was found to be alone in his house, not to have been recorded earlier. What we find is that the statement of this witness was recorded three months after the incident and no explanation for the delay is forthcoming from the Investigating Officer. To us, it appears that the witness was not present and as such his testimony is not worthy of credence. 19. SI Shamsher Singh states that after sending information to the Superior Officer, by associating independent witnesses, he walked to the village of the accused and from the ground floor of his house recovered contraband substance, which upon weighment was found to be of 700 grams. He drew two samples, which were sealed. He prepared NCB form and sent Rukka for registration of the FIR. With the receipt of the file, he arrested the accused. Case property was handed over to MHC Raj Kumar. 20. Police party left the Police Station for setting up a Naaka, in a private jeep. This was at 2.30-3 a.m. Witness does not even remember the number of such private vehicle. There is no entry of the police having left in a private jeep. Why would a police party leave the Police Station in a private jeep? has not been explained. What was the make of the vehicle? Who was the driver? Who was the owner? Was any fare paid? All this remains unexplained by the prosecution. There is no entry of the police having left in a private jeep. Why would a police party leave the Police Station in a private jeep? has not been explained. What was the make of the vehicle? Who was the driver? Who was the owner? Was any fare paid? All this remains unexplained by the prosecution. According to SI Shamsher Singh, police reached Nagwain within half an hour and stayed there for four hours, which means police would have left Nagwain, for the house of the accused, only at about 7 a.m., but the witness contradicts himself by saying that Shri Durga Ram met them at 5.30 a.m. Significantly, he also admits that from Nagwain, police party went to village Silh in a vehicle and thereafter walked on foot to the house of the accused, which was at a distance of 2½ kms. 21. Now this version of his stands materially contradicted by Constable Sanjay Kumar, according to whom police party reached the spot at about 6 a.m. Difference in time acquires significance in view of version of HC Balak Ram, according to whom, police party did not leave Nagwain in a jeep, but walked up to the house of the accused. He further states that it was at about 6 a.m. that SI Shamsher Singh associated him as a member of the raiding party and only thereafter they walked, on foot, and covered a distance of 5½ kms. 22. There is yet another material contradiction, which we find to have emerged in his testimony. Constable Balak Ram states that only two police officials, i.e. SI Shamsher Singh and he, formed the raiding party, which version stands contradicted not only by SI Shamsher Singh but also Constable Sanjay Kumar. Further, this witness also admits that the accused has got three sons, who also reside with him. 23. Thus, we do not find testimony of the police officials to be inspiring in confidence. 24. From the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence, he has been charged with. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. From the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence, he has been charged with. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events does not stand conclusively established, leading only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. Circumstances when cumulatively considered do not fully establish completion of chain of events, indicating to the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis other than the same. 25. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused was found in conscious and exclusive possession of 700 grams of Charas. 26. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 27. The accused has 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 Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , 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 interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.