JUDGMENT: P.S.Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirmour District at Nahan in Sessions trial No.1-N/7 of 2008 titled State of HP Vs. Nomu Ram and others. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased Sadhu Ram son of Smt. Kamla Devi and brother of Puran was labourer. It is further alleged by prosecution that marriage of deceased Sadhu Ram was settled with the daughter of co-accused Nomu Ram and deceased Sadhu Ram had given Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram as marriage consideration amount. It is further alleged by prosecution that Reena Devi daughter of coaccused Nomu Ram stayed with deceased Sadhu Ram at Kullu/Manali for about 10/12 days. It is further alleged by prosecution that after some time co-accused Nomu Ram brought back his daughter Reena Devi from Manali and got her married somewhere else due to which the relation between co-accused Nomu Ram and deceased Sadhu Ram became strained. It is further alleged by prosecution that whenever deceased Sadhu Ram used to demand back his money then accused persons used to quarrel with deceased and also used to threaten deceased to kill him. It is further alleged by prosecution that on dated 18.9.2007 at about 9 PM deceased Sadhu Ram came to the house of co-accused Nomu Ram for demand of his money and thereafter deceased Sadhu Ram did not return to his house. It is further alleged by prosecution that on dated 19.9.2007 at about 11.25 AM co-accused Jogi Ram filed a criminal complaint in Police Station Shillai regarding quarrel which took place in the evening on dated 18.9.2007 with deceased Sadhu Ram on the basis of which rapat in daily diary Ext PW10/A was recorded by PW10 Constable Tapender. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter medical examination of co-accused Jogi Ram was also conducted by PW12 Dr.Rajeev Chauhan the then Medical Officer CHC Shillai on dated 19.9.2007 and he was found to have sustained three injuries which were simple in nature caused with blunt weapon regarding which MLC Ext PW12/A was issued. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter medical examination of co-accused Jogi Ram was also conducted by PW12 Dr.Rajeev Chauhan the then Medical Officer CHC Shillai on dated 19.9.2007 and he was found to have sustained three injuries which were simple in nature caused with blunt weapon regarding which MLC Ext PW12/A was issued. It is further alleged by prosecution that on dated 23.9.2007 a telephonic message was received at about 4 PM by PW1 Inspector Narveer Singh that a dead body was seen in the water of Echadi dam and thereafter rapat in the daily diary Ext PW16/A was recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter on receipt of information PW19 HC Arjun Singh went to the spot along with police officials and found that a dead body was floating in the water which was fully decomposed. It is further alleged by prosecution that both legs and one hand of the body was tied with the help of a rope. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter photographs of dead body were obtained which are Ext PW19/C-1 to Ext PW19/C-10 and inquest report Ext PW19/A and Ext PW19/B were prepared and the dead body was brought to Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib for post mortem examination. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW1 Inspector Narveer Singh also examined dead body and on examination of dead body it appears to be a case of murder and thereafter rukka Ext PW1/A was prepared which was forwarded to Police Station. It is further alleged by prosecution that body of deceased Sadhu Ram was fully decomposed and thereafter same was sent for post mortem examination. It is further alleged by prosecution that on dated 25.9.2007 PW2 Kamla Devi came to know regarding recovery of dead body and identified the dead body of deceased. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per post mortem report deceased had died due to antemortem head injury and duration between death and injury was instantaneous and between death and post mortem was 7 to 10 days. It is further alleged by prosecution that post mortem report is Ext PW21/A. It is further alleged by prosecution that viscera of the deceased along with clothes were handed over to police for chemical examination and as per report of chemical examiner Ext PA no poison was detected in the viscera. It is further alleged by prosecution that post mortem report is Ext PW21/A. It is further alleged by prosecution that viscera of the deceased along with clothes were handed over to police for chemical examination and as per report of chemical examiner Ext PA no poison was detected in the viscera. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per report of chemical examiner Ext PX human blood was detected on the vest, trouser and Tshirt of deceased Sadhu Ram. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter dead body was handed over to PW3 Puran vide memo Ext PW3/A. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW2 Smt Kamla Devi expressed suspicion for the commission of murder of deceased Sadhu Ram upon co-accused Nomu Ram and co-accused Jogi Ram. It is further alleged by prosecution that co-accused Nomu Ram and co-accused Jogi Ram were arrested on dated 27.9.2007. It is further alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext PW17/A was recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded and as per disclosure statement clothes which were worn at the time of incident and stick were recovered. It is further alleged by prosecution that trouser Ext P2 and shirt Ext P3 were also took into possession vide memo Ext PW7/C. It is further alleged by prosecution that stick Ext P1 was also took into possession vide memo Ext PW7/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per chemical examination report Ext PX human blood was found on the trouser. It is further alleged by prosecution that akas tatima Ext PW5/A and copy of Jamabandi Ext PW5/D were also took into possession and copy of family register Ext PW6/A was also took into possession. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per opinion of PW21 Dr.Piyush Kapila the injury sustained by deceased on his head could be caused with stick Ext P9 which was sufficient to cause death. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Nahan framed charge against accused persons under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined as many as twenty one witnesses in support of its case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Nahan framed charge against accused persons under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined as many as twenty one witnesses in support of its case. Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Inspector Narveer singh PW2 Smt. Kamla Devi PW3 Puran @ Pardeep PW4 Jati Ram PW5 Dinesh Sharma PW6 Surat Singh PW7 Kalyan Singh PW8 Balbir Singh PW9 Kalyan Singh PW10 Constable Tapender PW11 Dhani Ram PW12 Dr. Rajeev Chauhan PW13 Veer Singh PW14 Kanwar Singh PW15 Constable Surender Tomar PW16 Constable Dinesh Kumar PW17 SI Balak Ram PW18 Gulasher Ahmed PW19 HC Arjun Singh PW20 Inspector Shyam Lal PW21 Dr. Piyush Kapila 4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No. Description. Ext. PW1/A Rukka Ext. PW1/B Statement of Smt. Kamla Devi Ext. PW1/C Statement of Somani Ext. PW1/D Statement of Sant Ram Ext. PW1/E Statement of Puran. Ext. PW1/F Letter Ext. PW3/A Memo Ext. PW4/A Memo regarding place of occurrence. Ext. PW4/B Memo regarding recovery of stick and clothes etc. Ext. PW5/A Akas Tatima Ext. PW5/B Memo of demarcation Ext. PW5/C Memo regarding throwing of dead body in Tons river. Ext. PW5/D Jamabandi of the spot. Ext. PW6/A Copy of family register Ext. PW7/A Memo regarding recovery of stick. Ext. PW7/B Recovery memo of stick Ext. PW7/C Recovery memo of trouser and shirt. Ext. PW7/D Recovery memo of clothes. Ext. PW7/E&F Recovery memo of trouser, shirt and stick. Ext. PW7/G Recovery memo of under shirt and trouser of Jogi Ram. Ext. PW10/A&B Rapat No.10 and 18 respectively Ext. PW12/A MLC of Jogi Ram Ext. PW13/A Memo regarding recovery of stick, Shirt and trouser. Ext. PW15/A Rapat Ext. PW16/A Copy of rapat No.9 Dated 23-9-2007 Ext.PW16/B&C Copy of rapat No. 20 dated 24-9-2007. and rapat No.7 dated 28-9-2007 Ext. PW17/A FIR Ext. PW17/B Endorsement on the back of Ext. PW1/F Ext. PW19/ A&B Inquest reports Ext. PA Rapat Ext. PW20/A Site plan Ext. PW20/B Site plan Ext. PW20/C Statement of Balbir Singh Ext. PW20/D&E Statements of kanwar singh & Veer Singh. Ext. PW21/A Post mortem report Ext. PW21/B Final opinion Ext. PX Report of chemical examiner Ext. P1 Stick. Ext. P2 Trouser Ext. P3 Shirt Ext. P4 Trouser Ext. P5 Shirt Ext. P6 Stick Ext. P7 Undershirt. Ext. P8 Trouser Ext. P9 Stick. 5. PW20/C Statement of Balbir Singh Ext. PW20/D&E Statements of kanwar singh & Veer Singh. Ext. PW21/A Post mortem report Ext. PW21/B Final opinion Ext. PX Report of chemical examiner Ext. P1 Stick. Ext. P2 Trouser Ext. P3 Shirt Ext. P4 Trouser Ext. P5 Shirt Ext. P6 Stick Ext. P7 Undershirt. Ext. P8 Trouser Ext. P9 Stick. 5. Statement of accused persons also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. Learned trial Court acquitted all accused persons. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirmour District at Nahan State of HP filed present appeal. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and also perused entire record carefully. 8. Point for determination in the present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant. 9. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9.1. PW1 Inspector Narveer Singh has stated that during the year 2007 he was posted as Investigating Officer at Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has stated that on dated 23.9.2007 at about 4.00 PM a telephonic message was received in Police Station Paonta Sahib that a dead body of unknown person was floating in the water of Echadi dam and he informed incharge Police Post Rajban and directed him to visit at spot. He has stated that HC Arjun was sent by Incharge Police Post Rajban to visit at the spot who brought dead body to Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib for conducting post mortem. He has stated that dead body was brought to hospital by HC Arjun Singh on dated 24.9.2007 in the evening. He has stated that he personally examined dead body in the mortuary house and dead body had started decomposing. He has stated that deceased was having injury mark on his forehead. He has stated that deceased was wearing green colour T-shirt and grey jeans trouser and deceased was naked from hip portion. He has stated that feet and left hand of deceased Sadhu Ram were tied with rope. He has stated that after examination of dead body it appears to be a case of murder and thereafter he wrote rukka for registration of case at Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has stated that feet and left hand of deceased Sadhu Ram were tied with rope. He has stated that after examination of dead body it appears to be a case of murder and thereafter he wrote rukka for registration of case at Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has stated that rukka Ext PW1/A was sent through Constable Hira Singh. He has stated that dead body was identified by the relatives of deceased Sadhu Ram. He has stated that he also obtained photographs of the dead body. He has stated that he recorded statements of Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Shimani, Sant Ram and Puran which are Ext PW1/B to Ext PW1/E. He has stated that since the case pertains to Police Station Shillai the case was handed over to Police Station Shillai vide letter Ext PW1/F for further investigation. He has stated that on dated 27.9.2007 he arrested co-accused Nomu Ram and coaccused Jogi Ram. He has stated that on dated 28.9.2007 the file was handed over to Police Station Shillai. He has stated that thereafter co-accused Nomu Ram and coaccused Jogi Ram were brought from their house. He has stated that on inspection of dead body only one injury was found on the forehead of deceased Sadhu Ram. 9.2. PW2 Smt. Kamla Devi has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram was her son. She has stated that deceased performed labour work. She has stated that some time deceased went to Kullu/Manali in connection with labour work and co-accused Nomu Ram also used to accompany with deceased Sadhu Ram to Manali. She has stated that there was proposal of marriage of Reena Devi daughter of co-accused Nomu Ram with her son deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that Reena Devi daughter of co-accused Nomu Ram had also visited at Manali and stayed at Manali for about 10/12 days with her son deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that thereafter co-accused Nomu Ram married his daughter somewhere else in Haryana and relation between deceased Sadhu Ram and co-accused Nomu Ram became strained after the marriage of Reena Devi. She has stated that her son deceased Sadhu Ram had given Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram. She has stated that on dated 18.9.2007 deceased Sadhu Ram went to the house of co-accused Nomu Ram to demand his money at about 9.00 PM and thereafter deceased Sadhu Ram did not return. She has stated that her son deceased Sadhu Ram had given Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram. She has stated that on dated 18.9.2007 deceased Sadhu Ram went to the house of co-accused Nomu Ram to demand his money at about 9.00 PM and thereafter deceased Sadhu Ram did not return. She has stated that she inquired from her relatives but no information was received regarding her son deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that thereafter she thought that her son deceased Sadhu Ram might have gone to Kullu/Manali in connection with labour work. She has stated that whenever her son deceased Sadhu Ram went to the house of co-accused Nomu Ram to demand his money co-accused Nomu Ram and his family members used to threat deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that thereafter on dated 25.9.2007 she came to know that police official had recovered a dead body in Echadi dam on dated 24.9.2007. She has stated that thereafter she along with her son and relatives went to the mortuary house at Paonta Sahib and identified the dead body. She has stated that the feet and one hand of deceased Sadhu Ram was tied with rope and she expressed suspicion on co-accused Nomu Ram and co-accused Jogi Ram for the commission of murder of her son deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that the age of deceased Sadhu Ram was 19 years. She has stated that she has four sons and three daughters. She has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram was the eldest son. She has stated that her deceased son Sadhu Ram came to village from Manali on dated 24.9.2007 and brought Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) with him. She has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram had given amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram at the house co-accused Nomu Ram. She has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram only used to bear expenses of entire family as there was no other earning member in her family. She has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram had gone to Manali in connection with labour work in the month of July 2007. She has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram had also gone with deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram had given Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram as consideration amount for marriage of Reena Devi with her deceased son Sadhu Ram. She has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram had also gone with deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram had given Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram as consideration amount for marriage of Reena Devi with her deceased son Sadhu Ram. She has stated that her house is situated at a distance of about 7 Kms. from the house of co-accused Nomu Ram. She has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram did not visit at her house prior to the death of deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that when deceased Sadhu Ram did not return back from the house of co-accused Nomu Ram thereafter she went to the house of co-accused Nomu Ram to inquire about deceased Sadhu Ram. She has stated that co-accused Bhagat is the brother of co-accused Nomu Ram. She has denied suggestion that Reena Devi daughter of coaccused Nomu Ram had not visited at Manali. She also denied suggestion that Reena Devi daughter of co-accused Nomu Ram had not stayed with deceased Sadhu Ram at Manali. She has denied suggestion that co-accused Nomu Ram had not promised to marry his daughter with deceased Sadhu Ram. She has denied suggestion that deceased Sadhu Ram did not pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram. 9.3 PW3 Puran has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram was his brother. He has stated that deceased Sadhu Ram used to perform labour work and some time deceased used to visit Kullu/Manali in connection with labour work. He has stated that marriage of deceased Sadhu Ram was settled with the daughter of co-accused Nomu Ram. He has stated that his brother deceased Sadhu Ram had given Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- to co-accused Nomu Ram as marriage consideration amount. He has stated that Reena Devi daughter of co-accused Nomu Ram stayed at Kullu/Manali for about 10/12 days. He has stated that after some time co-accused Nomu Ram brought back his daughter from Manali. He has stated that on dated 18.9.2007 deceased Sadhu Ram went to the house of coaccused Nomu Ram at about 9 PM to bring back money from co-accused Nomu Ram. He has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram had married his daughter in Haryana with some other person. He has stated that his brother deceased Sadhu Ram did not return home from the house of coaccused Nomu Ram. He has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram had married his daughter in Haryana with some other person. He has stated that his brother deceased Sadhu Ram did not return home from the house of coaccused Nomu Ram. He has stated that whenever deceased Sadhu Ram used to demand back his money co-accused Jogi Ram, co-accused Nomu Ram, co-accused Shupa Ram and co-accused Bhagtu Ram used to quarrel with deceased Sadhu Ram and used to threaten deceased Sadhu Ram to kill him. He has stated that on dated 25.9.2007 he came to know that police had recovered a dead body from Echadi dam which was kept in Civil hospital Paonta Sahib. He has stated that he along with his mother and relatives visited at civil hospital and identified the dead body of his brother deceased Sadhu Ram. He has stated that after post mortem dead body was handed over to him and memo Ext PW3/A was prepared which bears his signature. He has stated that photographs of dead body are marked A1 to A9. He has stated that his brother deceased Sadhu Ram had not given an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram in his presence. He has stated that he did not visit the house of co-accused Nomu Ram to inquire about his brother deceased Sadhu Ram. He has denied suggestion that Reena Devi did not remain with his brother deceased Sadhu Ram at Manali. He has denied suggestion that no amount was given by his brother deceased Sadhu Ram to co-accused Nomu Ram. 9.4. PW4 Jati Ram has stated that he was associated by the police in the investigation. He has stated that on dated 29.9.2007 co-accused Nomu Ram had given a disclosure statement to the police that he could locate the place where the incident took place. He has stated that memo Ext.PW4/A was prepared by him which bears his signature. He has stated that on dated 3.10.2007 coaccused Bhagtu disclosed to the police that he could locate the place where the dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram was thrown in Tons river. He has stated that co-accused Bhagtu had also given disclosure statement that he could produce stick used in the incident and clothes which were worn by him at the time of incident. He has stated that memo Ext PW4/B was prepared which was signed by him and Chattar Singh. He has stated that co-accused Bhagtu had also given disclosure statement that he could produce stick used in the incident and clothes which were worn by him at the time of incident. He has stated that memo Ext PW4/B was prepared which was signed by him and Chattar Singh. He has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram had also given disclosure statement that he could produce the stick used in the incident. He has stated that he could not tell who wrote disclosure statement. He has denied suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by co-accused Nomu Ram and co-accused Bhagat Ram. 9.5. PW5 Dinesh Sharma has stated that on dated 29.9.2007 on the direction of Tehsildar Shillai he went to village Mohrad to prepare tatima. He has stated that coaccused Nomu Ram located the place of incident and he prepared Akas Tatima Ext PW5/A. He has stated that coaccused Nomu Ram had also shown place where the dead body was thrown in Tons river and memo Ext PW5/C was prepared. He has stated that incident took place in khasra No.1412/601 and he also prepared jamabandi Ext. PW5/D. He has stated that Tons river is situated at a distance of 3 Kms. from the house of co-accused Nomu Ram. He has stated that there was no evidence of throwing of dead body near Tons river. He has stated that police officials have inquired from co-accused Nomu Ram in his court yard about the place of incident. 9.6. PW6 Surat Singh has stated that he was working as Panchayat Assistant Secretary Gram Panchayat Balikoti and on the request of police officials he prepared copy of family register which is Ext PW6/A. He has denied suggestion that he had not given copy of birth register because in the birth register the age of co-accused Jogi Ram was less then 18 years. 9.7. PW7 Kalyan Singh has stated that on dated 29.9.2007 he remained associated in the investigation. He has stated that in his presence co-accused Nomu Ram has produced one stick and one trouser and shirt to police officials. He has stated that he does not know whether any seal was placed on the parcel or not. Witness was declared hostile. He has stated that on dated 29.9.2007 co-accused Nomu Ram had disclosed to police that he could recover stick from his house and thereafter memo Ext PW7/A was prepared. He has stated that he does not know whether any seal was placed on the parcel or not. Witness was declared hostile. He has stated that on dated 29.9.2007 co-accused Nomu Ram had disclosed to police that he could recover stick from his house and thereafter memo Ext PW7/A was prepared. He has admitted that co-accused Nomu Ram produced one stick Ext P1 from his house which was took into possession by investigating agency. He has admitted that recovery memo of stick Ext PW7/B was prepared by police. He has admitted that co-accused Nomu Ram had produced one trouser and shirt to the investigating agency which were kept in a parcel by police. He has stated that trouser Ext P2 and shirt Ext P3 are the same which were took into possession by investigating agency from coaccused Nomu Ram. He has stated that memo Ext PW7/C was prepared at the spot. He has stated that co-accused Shupa Ram had given disclosure statement that he could produce clothes which he had worn at the time of incident and memo Ext PW7/D was prepared. He has stated that thereafter co-accused Shupa Ram had handed over his shirt and trouser to the investigating agency. He has stated that a parcel of clothes was also prepared by investigating agency. He has stated that trouser of coaccused Shupa Ram Ext P4 and shirt Ext P5 were took into possession by the investigating agency. He has stated that co-accused Jogi Ram had also handed over his clothes to the investigating agency. He has stated that all the proceedings had taken place in the court yard of co-accused Nomu Ram. He has stated that undershirt of co-accused Jogi Ram is Ext P7 and trouser is Ext P8. He has stated that he was sent by police officials to his house to bring tea for them and when he came back from his house the parcels were already prepared. He has stated that when he came back his signatures were obtained on various papers already written by police officials. 9.8. PW8 Balbir Singh has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram had not given any disclosure statement in his presence. Witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. He has denied suggestion that on dated 29.9.2007 coaccused Nomu Ram had given disclosure statement that he could recover stick and clothes kept by him in his house. 9.8. PW8 Balbir Singh has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram had not given any disclosure statement in his presence. Witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. He has denied suggestion that on dated 29.9.2007 coaccused Nomu Ram had given disclosure statement that he could recover stick and clothes kept by him in his house. He has denied suggestion that police officials prepared memo Ext PW7/A in his presence. He has admitted that coaccused Nomu Ram had brought one stick from his house and in this regard seizure memo Ext PW1/B was prepared. He has admitted that co-accused Nomu Ram handed over his trouser Ext P2 and shirt Ext P3 to police officials. He has denied suggestion that police officials had sealed the clothes in a parcel. He denied suggestion that co-accused Shupa Ram disclosed to the police that he could recover clothes which were worn by him at the time of incident. He has admitted that co-accused Shupa Ram handed over stick Ext P6 to police which was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW7/F. He has denied suggestion that police officials had sealed articles in his presence. He has admitted that co-accused Nomu Ram is his real maternal uncle and co-accused Shupa Ram and co-accused Jogi Ram are his brother-in-law. He denied suggestion that in order to save accused persons he resiled from his earlier statement. 9.9. PW9 Kalyan Singh has stated that he remained posted as MHC at Police Station Shillai from 2006 to May 2007. He has stated that on dated 29.9.2007 SI Shayam Lal had handed over him three parcels sealed with seal impression ‘ADS’ and two sticks sealed with seal impression ‘ADS’. He has stated that again on dated 3.10.2007 SI Shayam Lal had handed over a parcel sealed with seal impression ‘P’ and a bamboo stick along with seal impression ‘P’. He has stated that on dated 5.10.2007 HC Chattar Singh handed over viscera in a Jar and entries were recorded in the register. He has stated that thereafter he sent articles through Constable Dhani Ram to FSL Junga for chemical analysis vide RC No.50 of 2007. He has stated that case property remained intact in his custody. 9.10. PW10 Constable Tapender Singh has stated that he remained posted as MC at Police Station Shillai w.e.f 2005 to March 2008. He has stated that thereafter he sent articles through Constable Dhani Ram to FSL Junga for chemical analysis vide RC No.50 of 2007. He has stated that case property remained intact in his custody. 9.10. PW10 Constable Tapender Singh has stated that he remained posted as MC at Police Station Shillai w.e.f 2005 to March 2008. He has stated that on dated 19.9.2007 he was present at Police Station along with SI Jeet Singh at about 11.25 AM. He has stated that one coaccused Jogi Ram came to Police Station and lodged a criminal complaint regarding quarrel with deceased Sadhu Ram. He has stated that he recorded entry in daily diary at serial No.10 copy of which is Ext PW10/A which was written by him. He has stated that thereafter complainant Jogi Ram was sent for medical examination at CHC Shillai. He has stated that all injuries sustained by co-accused Jogi Ram were simple in nature. He has stated that thereafter on dated 28.9.2007 SHO Paonta Sahib sent to rukka for registration of case against accused persons and thereafter FIR No.56 of 2007 dated 28.9.2007 was registered at Police Station Shillai. 9.11. PW11 Constable Dhani Ram has stated that he was posted at Police Station Shillai since 2006. He has stated that on dated 7.10.2007 MHC Kalyan Singh Police Station Shillai handed over five parcels sealed with seal impression ‘SDA’. He has stated that he deposited all parcels at FSL Junga vide RC No.50 of 2007. He has stated that case property remained intact in his custody. 9.12. PW12 Dr. Rajeev Chauhan has stated that he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Shillar from 2006. He has stated that on dated 19.9.2007 co-accused Jogi Ram son of Nomu Ram was brought by police for medico legal examination with the alleged history of assault. He has stated that on examination he observed that lacerated wound on upper part of left pinna measuring 3 cm in length involving whole thickness clotted blood was present. He has stated that contusion of size 3 cm x 1 cm obliquely placed on left mallor region red in colour with clear interming space skin was abbreted and contusion of size 2 cm x 1 reddish blue in colour on left lower eye lid was present. He has stated that injuries were simple caused by blunt object. He has stated that contusion of size 3 cm x 1 cm obliquely placed on left mallor region red in colour with clear interming space skin was abbreted and contusion of size 2 cm x 1 reddish blue in colour on left lower eye lid was present. He has stated that injuries were simple caused by blunt object. He has stated that he issued MLC Ext PW12/A which bears his signature. He has stated that injuries mentioned in MLC Ext PW12/A could be caused within duration of 15 hours. He has stated that injury No.1 was located on a delicate part of body and it could cause contusion and ultimately caused in unconsciousness. He has stated that weapon was used by force. He has stated that injuries No. 1 to 3 could be caused with stick blows. 9.13. PW13 Veer Singh has stated that he was up- Pradhan Gram Panchayat Balikoti. He has stated that on dated 3.10.2007 he along with Sh Kanwar Singh Pardhan Gram Panchayat Balikoti were associated by the police and a stick was shown by police officials of Police Station Shillai. He has stated that he does not know from where the sticks were recovered. He has stated that accused persons are known to him who are resident of Gram Panchayat Balikoti. He has stated that accused persons are not related to him. He has stated that he is Rajput by caste and accused persons are Harijon by caste. He has denied suggestion that on dated 3.10.2007 he along with Kanwar Singh and coaccused Bhagtu were associated by police and sticks were recovered at the instance of co-accused Bhagtu. He denied suggestion that on the same day co-accused Bhagtu has produced one shirt and trouser from his house and told that he was wearing the aforesaid clothes on dated 18.9.2007 at the time of incident. He denied suggestion that co-accused Bhagtu had told that injury was caused upon deceased Sadhu Ram by a stick. He denied suggestion that he resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused persons. He has stated that he signed memo Ext PW13/A at Police Station Shillai. 9.14 PW14 Kanwar Singh has stated that he was Pardhan Gram Panchayat Balikoti since 2005 and he was called on dated 3.10.2007 by police at Police Station Shillai and was shown to him a shirt, stick and trouser. He has stated that he signed memo Ext PW13/A at Police Station Shillai. 9.14 PW14 Kanwar Singh has stated that he was Pardhan Gram Panchayat Balikoti since 2005 and he was called on dated 3.10.2007 by police at Police Station Shillai and was shown to him a shirt, stick and trouser. He has stated that he does not know anything about the case and the same was not recovered in his presence. Witness was declared hostile. He has stated that co-accused Bhagtu is known to him. He has denied suggestion that on dated 3.10.2007 co-accused Bhagtu took police officials to his house and trouser, shirt and sticks were recovered at his instance. He denied suggestion that co-accused Bhagtu had also given disclosure statement that stick was used in beating deceased Sadhu Ram. He denied suggestion that he resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused persons. 9.15 PW15 Constable Surender Tomar has stated that he remained posted at Police Station Paonta Sahib from September 2006 to September 2008. He has stated that on dated 24.9.2009 he was performing duty at about 8.15 PM and HC Arjun Singh came from Police Post Rajban and lodged rapat Ext PW15/A. 9.16 PW16 Constable Dinesh Kumar has stated that he was posted as MC at Police Post Rajban from April 2006. He has stated that on dated 23.9.2007 on telephonic message received from Station House Officer Paonta Sahib regarding presence of dead body in Echhadi dam he recorded entry in daily diary at serial No.9 and again recorded entry in rapat No.20 on dated 24.9.2007 regarding departure of HC Arjun Singh along with other staff towards Echhadi dam. He has stated that on dated 28.9.2007 a rapat No.7 was entered in daily diary register about arrival of HC Arjun Singh and other police officials. He has stated that copy of rapat No.9 is Ext PW16/A, copy of rapat No.20 is Ext PW16/B and copy of rapat No.7 is Ext PW16/C which are true according to original record. 9.17 PW17 SI Balak Ram has stated that he remained posted at Police Station Shillai from 2006 to 2007. He has stated that copy of rapat No.9 is Ext PW16/A, copy of rapat No.20 is Ext PW16/B and copy of rapat No.7 is Ext PW16/C which are true according to original record. 9.17 PW17 SI Balak Ram has stated that he remained posted at Police Station Shillai from 2006 to 2007. He has stated that on dated 28.9.2007 Constable Hira Singh Police Station Paonta Sahib brought a rukka Ext PW1/A and he registered FIR No. 56 of 2007 Ext PW17/A and endorsement is Ext PW1/F. 9.18 PW18 Gul Sher Ahmad has stated that he is running photographs shop at Paonta Sahib. He has stated that on dated 25.9.2007 he went to mortuary house and clicked photographs of dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram. He has stated that thereafter he handed over photographs along with negatives to police officials. 9.19 PW19 HC Arjun Singh has stated that he was posted at Police Post Rajban from 2007. He has stated that on dated 24.9.2007 information was received that a dead body was floating in Echadi dam. He has stated that he along with police officials went at the spot and found that dead body was floating in the water. He has stated that dead body was brought with the help of boat. He has stated that after inspection of dead body it was observed that dead body was a male person and same was fully decomposed. He has stated that both legs and one hand were tied with the help of rope. He has stated that photograph of dead body was obtained. He has stated that dead body was brought in a private vehicle at Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib. He has stated that dead body was placed in the mortuary house for post mortem. He has stated that Medical Officer posted at civil hospital Paonta Sahib advised for the conduct of post mortem from IGMC Shimla because the body was fully decomposed. He has stated that on dated 26.9.2007 brother of deceased Pardeep Kumar and mother Amla Devi came there and identified dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram. He has stated that thereafter dead body was brought to IGMC Shimla for post mortem and post mortem was conducted in IGMC Shimla. He has stated that after post mortem dead body was handed over to the relative of deceased and receipt Ext PW3/A was prepared. He has stated that thereafter dead body was brought to IGMC Shimla for post mortem and post mortem was conducted in IGMC Shimla. He has stated that after post mortem dead body was handed over to the relative of deceased and receipt Ext PW3/A was prepared. He has stated that photographs are Ext PW19/C-1 to Ext PW19/C- 10 and negatives are Ext PW19/C-11. He has stated that he noticed only one injury upon the dead body above the ear. 9.20. PW20 Inspector Shayam Lal has stated that in the year 2007 he remained posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Shillai. He has stated that investigation of the case was conducted by him. He has stated that case was registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has stated that later on it was observed that occurrence took place in the jurisdiction of Police Station Shillai and thereafter case was referred to Police Station Shillai. He has stated that co- accused Nomu Ram was arrested by police officials posted at Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has stated that on dated 29.9.2007 co-accused Nomu Ram had given disclosure statement that he could identify the place of incident where the dead body was thrown in the river. He has stated that disclosure statement of co-accused Nomu Ram was recorded. He has stated that thereafter co-accused Nomu Ram took police officials and witnesses to the place of incident and identify the place where the deceased was thrown in the river. He has stated that he also prepared site plan Ext PW20/A and Ext PW20/B. He has stated that coaccused Nomu Ram had also given disclosure statement that he had concealed sticks in his house and thereafter sticks were recovered from the house of co-accused Nomu Ram. He has stated that stick is Ext P1. He has stated that co-accused Shupa Ram and co-accused Jogi Ram were arrested by him on dated 29.9.2007. He has stated that clothes were also took into possession as per disclosure statement of co-accused Shupa Ram. He has stated that stick Ext P9, Shirt Ext P7 and trouser Ext P8 were recovered as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Bhagtu. He has stated that Akas Tatima Ext PW5/A was got prepared from Halqua Patwari. He has stated that medical of co-accused Jogi Ram was also got conducted in Civil Hospital Shillai and MLC Ext PW12/A was obtained. He has stated that Akas Tatima Ext PW5/A was got prepared from Halqua Patwari. He has stated that medical of co-accused Jogi Ram was also got conducted in Civil Hospital Shillai and MLC Ext PW12/A was obtained. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses as per their versions and nothing was added or deleted by him. He has stated that co-accused Nomu Ram given disclosure statement and located the place of incident where the dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram was thrown. He has denied suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by accused persons. He denied suggestion that accused persons did not locate the place. He denied suggestion that co-accused Bhagtu and co-accused Nomu Ram were not present and they have gone outside for performing labour work. 9.21. PW21 Dr. Piyush Kapila has stated that he was posted in the department of Forensic Medicine IGMC Shimla since September 1998. He has stated that on dated 27.9.2007 a dead body of Sadhu Ram was brought for post mortem examination along with inquest papers. He has stated that dead body was identified by Pardeep Kumar and Shupa Ram. He has stated that dead body was recovered from Echhadi dam in District Sirmour. He has stated that after examination of dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram he observed that height of dead body was 5 feet 5 inches and hands from left side on both legs were tied with a plastic rope and the body was in decomposed condition and maggots all over the body were present. He has stated that skin slippage and ligature marks were present on legs and hands which were parchmentised. He has stated that multiple folds of the rope were kept on the body. He has stated that he observed following anti mortem injuries 3x2 cm. laceration was present on left side of forehead. He has further stated that he also observed following antemortem injuries 5 cm back to left eyebrow and supraorbital ridge, bone deep, radiating fracture directing from the point on frontal bone, parietal bone reaching up to temporal bone with separation of sagittal suture, with vital line of hemorrhage. He has stated that there was gross extradural hemorrhage at the site of fracture however rest of brain tissue was decomposed below the dural space. He has stated that there was gross extradural hemorrhage at the site of fracture however rest of brain tissue was decomposed below the dural space. He has further stated that he also observed parchmentisation of ligature mark on the legs and left hand were ante mortem in nature. He has stated that deceased had died as a result of ante mortem head injury. He has stated that probable time between injury and death was instantaneous. He has stated that clothes of the deceased were preserved, sealed and handed over to police officials. He has stated that he issued post mortem report Ext PW21/A which bears his signature. He has stated that post mortem report contains four leaves and five pages. He has stated that after receiving chemical examiner report Ext PA he issued final opinion report Ext PW21/B. He has stated that the cause of death remained same. He has stated that injury observed by him at the time of post mortem upon the head of deceased could be caused with stick Ext P9. He has stated that sole injury was sufficient to cause death. 10. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons have motive to eliminate deceased Sadhu Ram in order to escape repayment of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by State of HP be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is held that prosecution is under legal obligation to prove whether accused persons have committed murder of deceased Sadhu Ram on dated 18.9.2007 as alleged by prosecution. Case of the prosecution is not based upon oral eye witness but is based upon circumstantial evidence only. It is well settled law that in circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances should be completed in order to connect accused persons with the commission of criminal offence. The mere fact that deceased Sadhu Ram had given Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram in lieu of marriage of his daughter with deceased Sadhu Ram is not sole sufficient fact to hold that accused persons have committed murder of deceased Sadhu Ram. 11. The mere fact that deceased Sadhu Ram had given Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to co-accused Nomu Ram in lieu of marriage of his daughter with deceased Sadhu Ram is not sole sufficient fact to hold that accused persons have committed murder of deceased Sadhu Ram. 11. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that it is proved on record that deceased on dated 18.9.2007 went to the house of co-accused Nomu Ram in order to bring back Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) which he had advanced as marriage consideration amount to co-accused Nomu Ram and in view of the fact that rapat No.10 Ext PW10/A was recorded at the instance of co-accused Jogi Ram wherein co-accused Jogi Ram son of Nomu Ram had specifically admitted that on dated 18.9.2007 at about 9 PM deceased Sadhu Ram came to the house of co-accused Nomu Ram and thereafter quarrel took place and thereafter dead body of the deceased was found floating in Echhadi dam on dated 24.9.2007 and on this ground appeal filed by the State be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is not the case of the prosecution that dead body of deceased was found in the residential house of accused persons. On the contrary it is the case of the prosecution that dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram was found in Echhadi dam on dated 24.9.2007 which was in floating condition.In the present case the dead body was found in Echhadi dam in a floating manner in open public place and possibility of access of third person could not be ruled out beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled law that last seen theory comes into play only when time gap between the point of time when accused persons and deceased were last seen together and when deceased was found dead was so small that possibility of any person other then accused being author of the crime becomes impossible.In the present case in view of the fact that deceased went to the house of co-accused Nomu Ram on dated 18.9.2007 during night period at 9 PM and in view of the fact that dead body of the deceased was found on dated 24.9.2007 in Echhadi dam in a floating manner in an open place the possibility of any person other then the accused being author of the crime could not be ruled out. See AIR 2008 SC 2819 titled Kusuma Ankama Rao Vs. State of A.P. 12. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that it is proved on record that deceased Sadhu Ram had gone to residential house of co-accused Nomu Ram on dated 18.9.2007 at 9 PM and it is proved on record that thereafter quarrel took place and rapat No.10 Ext PW10/A was lodged by co-accused Jogi Ram and co-accused Jogi Ram had also sustained three injuries and on this ground appeal filed by State be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that rapat No.10 Ext PW10/A was recorded by co-accused Jogi Ram and there is recital in rapat No.10 Ext PW10/A that deceased came in the residential house of co-accused Jogi Ram on dated 18.9.2007 at about 9 PM and quarrel took place and thereafter co-accused Jogi Ram had sustained injuries. It is proved on record that co-accused Jogi Ram was examined by Medical Officer posted in Civil Hospital Shillai on dated 19.9.2007 at 11.45 AM and it is proved on record that co-accused Jogi Ram had sustained three injuries i.e. lacerated wound on upper part of left pinna measuring 3 cm in length involving whole thickness clotted blood. It is proved on record that co-accused Jogi Ram had also sustained contusion injuries of 3 cm x 1 cm size obliquely placed on left mallor region red in colour with clear interming space. It is proved on record that co-accused Jogi Ram had also sustained contusion injuries of 3 cm x 1 cm size obliquely placed on left mallor region red in colour with clear interming space. It is also proved on record that coaccused Jogi Ram had also sustained contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm reddish blue in colour on left lower eye lid. As per medical examination report all the injuries were simple caused with blunt object during 24 hours. Prosecution has not explained contusion injuries sustained by co-accused Jogi Ram and prosecution has concealed genesis of the present case. No explanation has been given by the prosecution as to how co-accused Jogi Ram had sustained three injuries i.e. lacerated and contusion injuries. It is held that simply filing of rapat No.10 Ext.PW10/A did not prove the case of the prosecution that accused persons have caused murder of deceased Sadhu Ram with sticks. 13. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that on the basis of disclosure statement given by accused persons the appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. PW8 Balbir Singh member Gram Panchayat when appeared in witness box has specifically stated that co-accused Nomu Ram did not give any disclosure statement in his presence. Similarly PW13 Veer Singh Up-Pradhan Gram Panchayat has also stated in positive manner that co-accused Bhagtu had not given any disclosure statement in his presence. PW14 Kanwar Singh Pradhan Gram Panchayat has also stated in positive manner that co-accused Bhagtu did not give any disclosure statement in his presence. The independent witness of the disclosure statement relied by the prosecution did not support the prosecution story in the present case which creates doubts in the mind of court. 14. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that accused persons after committing murder of deceased Sadhu Ram threw the dead body of deceased in Tons river which was situated at a distance of about 3 Km. 14. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that accused persons after committing murder of deceased Sadhu Ram threw the dead body of deceased in Tons river which was situated at a distance of about 3 Km. from the house of accused persons and thereafter dead body was recovered from Echhadi dam on dated 24.9.2007 wherein two legs, left hand and waist of deceased Sadhu Ram were tied with plastic rope and on this ground appeal filed by the State be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is the case of the prosecution that Tons river is situated at a distance of 3 Km. from the house of accused persons and there is no evidence in order to prove on record that in what manner accused persons took the dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram to a distance of 3 Km. from their house to Tons river. Even there is no finger prints or feet prints of accused persons collected by the prosecution in order to connect the accused persons with place Tons river and in order to connect accused persons with weapon of attack i.e. stick. 15. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that conduct of accused persons is covered under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and on this ground appeal filed by State be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that suspicion is not sufficient to convict the accused persons in criminal case. It is well settled law that in circumstantial evidence offence against accused persons should be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and there should be completion of chain of criminal offence. 16. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that in view of criminal analyst report placed on record appeal filed by State be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused chemical analyst report placed on record. As per chemical analyst report Ext PX and PA placed on record no poison was detected in the stomach and small intestine of the deceased and no poison was detected in the liver, spleen and kidney of the deceased Sadhu Ram. We have carefully perused chemical analyst report placed on record. As per chemical analyst report Ext PX and PA placed on record no poison was detected in the stomach and small intestine of the deceased and no poison was detected in the liver, spleen and kidney of the deceased Sadhu Ram. Even as per chemical analyst report Ext PX placed on record that though human blood was detected on exhibit 4a waist of deceased Sadhu Ram, exhibit 5b, exhibit 7a lower trouser of co-accused Jogi Ram and exhibit 8a shirt of co-accused Bhagtu but the blood grouping results on these exhibits were found inconclusive. It is well settled law that in order to connect accused persons with the commission of criminal offence blood group of accused persons or deceased should be proved on exhibits 4a, 5b, 7a and 8a. It is held that simply on the ground that human blood was detected it is not sufficient to convict the accused persons in the absence of blood group of accused persons and deceased upon the exhibits connecting accused persons with the commission of criminal offence. Even as per chemical analyst report blood was not detected on Ext 5a shirt, exhibit 6a trouser of co-accused Nomu Ram, exhibit 6b shirt of co-accused Nomu Ram, exhibit 7b T-shirt of co-accused Jogi Ram and exhibit 8b trouser of coaccused Bhagtu. Even as per chemical analyst report blood was detected on exhibit 4b T-shirt of deceased Sadhu Ram and exhibit 4c pant of deceased Sadhu Ram which was disintegrated for further examination. It is held that chemical analyst report did not connect accused persons in the commission of crime in the absence of blood group of accused persons or deceased Sadhu Ran upon exhibits. In the present case it is proved on record that dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram was not recovered as per prior disclosure statement given by accused persons. On the contrary dead body of deceased as per prosecution story was recovered on dated 24.9.2007 in Echhadi dam and disclosure statements of accused persons under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 were recorded on dated 29.9.2007 and 3.10.2007 after the recovery of dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram on dated 24.9.2007 from Echhadi dam. On the contrary dead body of deceased as per prosecution story was recovered on dated 24.9.2007 in Echhadi dam and disclosure statements of accused persons under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 were recorded on dated 29.9.2007 and 3.10.2007 after the recovery of dead body of deceased Sadhu Ram on dated 24.9.2007 from Echhadi dam. It is also well settled law that in order to convict the accused in circumstantial evidence five golden principles should be proved (i) That circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and the accused must be and not merely may be guilty (ii) That facts so established should be consistent only with guilt of the accused (iii) That circumstances should be of a conclusive nature. (iv) That chain of evidence should be complete (v) That innocence of accused should be ruled out. (See 2013 Cri.L.J. 2040, titled Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (Apex Court DB). It is well settled law that circumstantial evidence means combination of facts creating a network through which accused could not escape. See AIR 1992 SC 2045 titled Sakharam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, also see AIR 2002 SC 3206 titled Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, also see AIR 2010 SC 762 titled Musheer Khan and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, also see AIR 1979 SC 1410 titled State of Maharashtra Vs. Annappa Bandu Kavatage, also see AIR 1979 SC 826 titled S.P.Bhatnagar and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, also see AIR 1989 SC 1890 titled Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, also see AIR 1992 SC 758 titled Sakharam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, also see AIR 1981 SC 1675 titled State of Maharashtra Vs. Champalal Punjaji Shah, AIR 1975 SC 241 titled Dharm Das Wadhwani Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Also see AIR 1954 SC 621 titled Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab. 17. It is well settled law that circumstantial evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence it is only corroborative evidence. In the present case weapon of attack i.e. sticks were not sent by prosecution for chemical examination in order to prove that deceased had sustained head injury through sticks Ext P9. State of Punjab. 17. It is well settled law that circumstantial evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence it is only corroborative evidence. In the present case weapon of attack i.e. sticks were not sent by prosecution for chemical examination in order to prove that deceased had sustained head injury through sticks Ext P9. It is not proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that blood group of deceased was found upon sticks Ext P9 in order to connect the accused persons with the commission of crime as alleged by the prosecution. It was held in case reported (2005) 9 SCC 765 titled Anjlus Dungdung Vs. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was held in case reported in (2010) 11 SCC 423 titled Nanhar Vs. State of Haryana that prosecution must stand or fall on its own leg and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defense. Also See: (1984) 4 SCC 116 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra. It is well settled law that conjecture or suspicion cannot take place of legal proof. See: AIR 1967 SC 520 Charan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. Also See: AIR 1971 SC 1898 Gian Mahtani Vs. State of Maharashtra. It was held in case reported in AIR 1979 SC 1382 State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Gulzarilal Tandon that even where the circumstances raise a serious suspicion against the accused it cannot take the place of legal proof. Also See: AIR 1983 SC 906 titled Bhugdomal Gangaram and others Vs. The State of Gujarat See: AIR 1985 SC 1224 titled State of UP Vs. Sukhbasi and others. It is well settled principle of law that vested right accrued in favour of the accused with the judgment of acquittal by learned Sessions Court. (See (2013) 2 SCC 89 titled Mookkiah and another Vs. State. See 2011 (11) SCC 666 titled State of Rajashthan Vs. Talevar and another. See AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 78 titled Surendra Vs. State of Rajasthan. See 2012 (1) SCC 602 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutt). It is well settled principle of law (i) That appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible though the view of the appellate Court may be more probable. State of Rajasthan. See 2012 (1) SCC 602 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutt). It is well settled principle of law (i) That appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible though the view of the appellate Court may be more probable. (ii) That while dealing with a judgment of acquittal the appellate Court must consider entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether views of learned Courts below are perverse or otherwise unsustainable (iii) That appellate Court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, learned Courts below failed to take into consideration any admissible fact (iv) That learned courts below took into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (See AIR 1974 SC 2165 titled Balak Ram and another Vs. State of UP, See (2002) 3 SCC 57 titled Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, See (2003) 1 SCC 398 titled 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. Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, See (2009) 10 SCC 206 titled Arulvelu and another Vs. State, See (2009) 16 SCC 98 titled Perla Somasekhara Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P. See: (2010) 2 SCC 445 titled Ram Singh @ Chhaju Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh). 18. In view of the above stated facts it is held that learned trial Court had properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and it is held that learned trial Court did not cause miscarriage of justice to the appellant. Appeal filed by the State is dismissed and judgment passed by learned trial Court is affirmed. Benefit of doubt is given to accused persons. Case property will be confiscated to the State of Himachal Pradesh after expiry of period of limitation for filing further proceedings. Records of learned trial Court along with certified copy of judgment be sent back forthwith. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.