JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - State has appealed against the judgment dated 15.1.2008, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 72/7 of 2005, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Seemant Kumar and others, challenging the acquittal of respondents Seemant Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Rajinder Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stand charged for having committed offences, punishable under the provisions of Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act. 2. It is the case of prosecution that HC Nanak Chand (P.W. - 6), alongwith HC Jasbir Singh (P.W. - 7), Constable Ram Singh (not examined) and Constable Sunil Kumar (P.W. - 9), was present at Nihari Chowk. They had set up a Naka. This was on 24.10.2003. At about 4 a.m., police stopped Maruti Car No. HP-03-2103, which was coming from Dadhol side. One Mahindra Jeep No. HP-23-3538 was also following the car. The car was driven by accused Seemant Kumar, in which accused Vinod Kumar was sitting as a passenger. While the vehicle was being checked, accused Rajinder Kumar came out of the Jeep and sat inside the Maruti Car and suddenly, accused Seemant Kumar drove away the car. Intent being to kill the police personals present on the spot. The Jeep, which was left behind, was searched by the police, from which 40 cartons of alcohol (Una No. 1) and 30 cartons of country made liquor (Patiala Orange) were found. They were sealed and taken into possession, alongwith Jeep, vide Memo (Ex. PD), in the presence of Ram Singh and Jasbir Singh. Ruka (Ex. PA) was sent to Police Station, Ghumarwin, on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 150, dated 24.10.2003 (Ex. PB), was registered there. Car was chased and the accused apprehended. Sealed sample was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and report (Ex. PQ) 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 were charged for having committed offences, punishable under the provisions of Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. 3. Accused were charged for having committed offences, punishable under the provisions of Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and statements of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were also recorded, in which they pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was led. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charged offences. 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, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also M/s. Trilok Jamwal and J.R. Poswal, Advocates, 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 Vs. 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 and Others vs. The King-Emperor, AIR 1934 227 (Privy Council), 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. We find, genesis of the prosecution story not to be correct. Contradictions in the testimony of police officials, so present on the spot, are material, rendering the same to be absolutely shaky and unbelievable and the witnesses not worthy of credence. 10. Nanak Chand, in his examination-in-chief, states that Maruti Car bearing No. HP-03-2103 came from Dadhol side and the number of the car was temporary, whereas ASI Mohinder Singh (P.W. - 10), saw Seemant Kumar driving a motorcycle upto village Malari towards Barthin side. 10. Nanak Chand, in his examination-in-chief, states that Maruti Car bearing No. HP-03-2103 came from Dadhol side and the number of the car was temporary, whereas ASI Mohinder Singh (P.W. - 10), saw Seemant Kumar driving a motorcycle upto village Malari towards Barthin side. The contradiction is two fold: (1) the vehicle seized is Maruti Car No. HP-23A-2103 and not HP-03-2103, which was found on the spot, (2) if the version of Nanak Chand is to be believed that Seemant Kumar was driving the Car, then obviously the very same person could not have been present at village Malari, driving a motorcycle. The spot, where Naka was set up, is not village Malari or falls towards the side of village Barthin. 11. Further, Nanak Chand states that on the chowk, police officials were standing together, at point 'C', so shown in spot map (Ex. PE). What is sought to be conveyed is that the accused intended to run over all the police officials who were standing together on the spot, but then this fact stands contradicted by HC Jasbir Singh, according to whom, Nanak Chand and Ram Singh were standing on the right side of the road and at a distance of 10-12 feet. This only establishes preparation of the record to be false and deposition of Nanak Chand to be not true. In fact, version of Nanak Chand also stands belied by Sunil Kumar (P.W. - 9), according to whom, police officials were not standing together, but at different places, as the road at Nihari Chowk was quite wide. In fact, he contradicts version of Jasbir Singh by deposing that it was Ram Singh who was standing with Jasbir Singh. All this renders presence of police officials, on the spot, to be doubtful. 12. What further renders the prosecution story to be doubtful is the version of Nanak Chand, according to whom police party was carrying out the search operations with the help of a search light, with which things could be seen upto a distance of 100 feet, whereas according to Jasbir Singh "a thing could be seen in the search light from a distance of half kilometer". Said search light has not seen the light of the day. Nanak Chand admits that there was no street light at Nihari Chowk. Said search light has not seen the light of the day. Nanak Chand admits that there was no street light at Nihari Chowk. Then how is it that police officials, in the thick of night, were able to identify the accused, who apparently had driven away from the spot. 13. Who are the owners of these vehicles? Why were they not examined in Court? has not been explained by the prosecution. After all, alcohol was allegedly recovered from the vehicle so seized by the police. That the accused persons were identified to be very same persons who fled away from the spot, cannot be said to have been established by the police, for the vehicle recovered is different than the one with which alleged attempt was made to hurt the police officials. 14. Prosecution case is also further rendered doubtful from the fact that none of the police officials, present on the spot, sustained any injury. 15. There is yet another lapse in the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer admits that the contraband substance so recovered was not sent for analysis, as only one packet was sent, which was also not made homogeneous and there is nothing on record to establish that the sample so sent, matched with the labels found on the remaining bulk quantity/parcel. Thus, in view of the law laid down in Dharam Pal Vs. State of H.P. and Another, (2009) 1 ShimLC 140 , no case on this count can be said to have been made out by the prosecution. 16. 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 the charged offences. 17. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 18. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (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. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (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 ground for 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 applications, if any.