JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present appeal has been filed by State of Himachal Pradesh against the acquittal of respondents by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan vide judgment dated 8.12.2010, in Case No.9FTC/7 of 2010 under Section 20 of Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances, Act in FIR No.194 of 2009 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Solan. 2. As per prosecution story, one Santro car bearing registration No.DL-3CG-5464, occupied by three persons, was found parked on National Highway-22 Kumarhatti bye pass road on 2.8.2009 at about 5.15 p.m., during patrolling for traffic duty checking, by police party headed by ASI Vishwash Kumar and comprising of police officials, PW-7 HC Jai Singh, PW-9 HHC Mast Ram, HC Rajwinder and constable Rakesh Kumar. On enquiry, occupants of the car informed the police that vehicle was not in order and driver of vehicle disclosed his name as Suresh Kumar, who was asked to show documents and get the vehicle checked. When dicky of the car was opened by Suresh Kumar, with key of the vehicle and PW-14 Vishwash Kumar had intended to check dicky of the car, all the three occupants ran away towards the forest. Driver Suresh Kumar and another person Ram Narayan were apprehended by PW-14 Vishwash Kumar with the help of police officials. HC Rajwinder Singh and Constable Rakesh Kumar were sent to chase third occupant whose name was disclosed by his companion as Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Ramnaj, resident of village Nandal, Tehsil Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak. PW-6 Dayanand, who was passing through the road on foot, was associated as independent witness in investigation. The car was searched and during search, on opening zip of rear seat cover, a box was found, which contained a green colour plastic envelope in which 14 envelops, containing separate tablets and round shape substance, were found. On smelling and burning, recovered substance was found to be charas. The said charas was weighed on an electronic weighing machine in presence of witnesses and it was found to be one kilogram. 3. One hand bag was also recovered from dicky of vehicle containing a pant, a shirt, a towel and currency notes amounting to Rs.27,560/-. The recovered charas was sealed with seal impression ‘M’. NCB form (Ex.PW-13/B) was filled up in triplicate. 3. One hand bag was also recovered from dicky of vehicle containing a pant, a shirt, a towel and currency notes amounting to Rs.27,560/-. The recovered charas was sealed with seal impression ‘M’. NCB form (Ex.PW-13/B) was filled up in triplicate. After taking impressions of the seal on a piece of cloth and NCB form, seal was handed over to PW-4 Dayanand. Driving Licence of Suresh Kumar, RC of vehicle, bag and vehicle alongwith key were also taken into possession. A rukka Ex.PW-14/A was sent to Police Station through PW-9 Mast Ram for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR investigation was completed and challan was put in Court. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. Out of these, four official witnesses, PW-7 Jai Singh, PW-9 Mast Ram, PW-14 ASI Vishwash Kumar Investigating Officer and an independent witness PW-6 Dayanand associated during the course of investigation, are spot witnesses. 5. Close scrutiny of statements of these witnesses reveals that truth is being withheld from the Court and events have not occurred on the spot in the manner, as have been portrayed in prosecution case. The evidence on record also renders presence of police officials and occupants of car on the spot doubtful. 6. As per PW-7 Jai Singh, PW-9 Mast Ram and PW-14 ASI Vishwas Kumar Investigating Officer, the car was found parked on National Highway-22 , occupied by three persons, who on asking handed over documents of vehicle and Driving Licence of driver to PW-14 and during search of vehicle when dicky was opened by driver of the car, all three occupants ran away from the spot but two of them were apprehended and out of five police officials, two police officials namely Rajwinder Singh and Rakesh Kumar were sent to chase the third occupant of vehicle, and at this point in time PW-6 Dayanand, who was claimed to have reached on the spot, was associated in police investigation, whereas PW-6 Dayanand has belied this story stating that when he was going towards his house on 2.8. 2009 at about 5.20 p.m., one vehicle was stopped by police and only one Thanedar and PW-7 HHC Jai Singh were present on the spot alongwith Suresh and Ram Lal and the key was taken from Suresh, dicky was opened and contraband was recovered. 7. 2009 at about 5.20 p.m., one vehicle was stopped by police and only one Thanedar and PW-7 HHC Jai Singh were present on the spot alongwith Suresh and Ram Lal and the key was taken from Suresh, dicky was opened and contraband was recovered. 7. As per prosecution story, the car was found parked but as per PW-6 Dayanand, the car was stopped by the police. PW-6 Dayanand was associated in the investigation when Rajwinder Singh and Rakesh Kumar had gone to chase the third occupant, meaning thereby that at the time of associating PW-6 Dayanand, three police officials PW-14 Vishwash Kumar, PW-7 Jai Singh and PW-9 Mast Ram were present on the spot whereas as per PW-6 Dayanand only two officials HHC PW-7 Jai Singh and PW-14 Vishwash were present. As per police, dicky was opened by driver Suresh Kumar but as per PW-6 key was taken from driver and then dicky was opened in his presence. The case of the police that all three occupants of the car had run away from the spot after opening of dicky, whereas as per PW-6 Dayanand, dicky was opened in his presence, but he is silent about fleeing of occupants of car. 8. PW-9 Mast Ram has stated that when the accused persons ran away, they shouted for help of villagers for apprehending them but none came there to help them and Dayanand did not help them in apprehending the accused, though he was present. Thereafter he has stated that Dayanand had come later on, further stating that he did not remember that at what distance Dyananand was at the time of apprehending the accused. 9. The police party has been stated to be on patrolling for traffic checking duty. PW-9 Mast Ram has stated that they had stopped at 2-3 places for checking between Dohari Diwal and Samlech and checked small and heavy vehicles on the way and vehicles were challaned also. Whereas PW-7 Jai Singh has stated that he did not remember whether they Stopped on the way to spot or not. It is unbelievable that the person of police party remembering minute details of the case except stopping on the way, particularly, when as stated by PW-9 Mast Ram that after stopping 2-3 places, vehicles were not only checked but challaned also. 10. It is unbelievable that the person of police party remembering minute details of the case except stopping on the way, particularly, when as stated by PW-9 Mast Ram that after stopping 2-3 places, vehicles were not only checked but challaned also. 10. As per FIR registered on the basis of rukka, occupants of car had run towards forest and PW-7 Jai Singh has also stated so, whereas PW-14 Vishwash Kumar has stated that all occupants had run towards Kumarhatti and one of them ran towards downhill and others in straight way towards jungle. PW-9 Mast Ram has stated that accused persons ran on the road itself and third person had entered the bushes. 11. As per PW-7 Jai Singh, respondents had been apprehended at the distance of 5 to 7 meters and Rajwinder and Rakesh, who were sent for chasing the third occupant, had not come back on the spot but as per PW-9 Mast Ram, both of them had come back after half and hour to the spot empty handed. PW-6 Dayanand is completely silent about their return on the spot. PW-14 has stated that they had not come back on the spot. 12. PW-9 Mast Ram has stated about shouting for help of the villagers, whereas PW-7 and PW-14 have not stated so. 13. PW-7 has stated that police party had gone in a private vehicle but he did not remember the number and ownership of the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by ASI Vishwash Kumar. He has shown his inability to say that whether other officials had also driven this private vehicle up to the spot. The means of arrival and departure of police party from spot becomes relevant when their presence on the spot is doubtful because of glaring contradictions in statements of official witnesses. 14. The car No.DL-3CG-5464, taken into possession by police, was out of order. PW-6 Dayanand is silent about the means of removal of said car from spot. PW-7 Jai Singh has stated that they did not try to start the vehicle so as to check whether it was out of order or not. He has stated that he did not know as to how and with what mode, apprehended vehicle was brought to police station or police post. He has stated that he had come back alongwith PW-14 Vishwash Investigating Officer from the spot. He has stated that he did not know as to how and with what mode, apprehended vehicle was brought to police station or police post. He has stated that he had come back alongwith PW-14 Vishwash Investigating Officer from the spot. PW-14 has stated that said car was brought to police station by toeing with a private vehicle passing through the spot but he did not remember details of that vehicle. PW-7 has stated that he did not remember who drove apprehended car to police station. 15. The prosecution has also relied upon the photographs taken on the spot. PW-14 Vishwash Kumar has stated that these photographs were taken by him through a passer by. In examination-in-chief, PW-9 has stated that the photographs were taken by PW-14 Vishwash Kumar Investigating Officer. In cross-examination he has stated that he did not remember that who was the photographer and from where he was called. Whereas PW-14 Investigating Officer has stated that three photographs were taken by him and one photograph was taken by a passer by on his request. He has stated that he had neither recorded statement of passer by nor made any reference qua this fact in case diary. He has admitted that photograph Ex.P3-A was not clear and that it was of a car. He has also stated that neither accused nor police officials are visible in Ex.P3-A. PW-6 has admitted that he is not figuring in any of the photographs. 16. PW-7 Jai Singh has admitted that Tapan Motors is situated at a distance of 250 to 300 meters approximately from alleged place of occurrence and there are 4-5 shops, including two Dhabas, on the opposite side of Tapan Motors on the National Highway and that 50 workers work in Tapan Motors, and shops and dhabas also remain busy. He has also admitted that National Highway, on which alleged recovery was made, is a busy road. He has stated that no one was associated or called from Vikas Mushroom, Samlech or from other locality including Tapan Motors or shops. PW-9 Mast Ram has also admitted that Tapan Motors is at a distance of 200-250 meters from the alleged place of occurrence and road in question is a busy road. 17. He has stated that no one was associated or called from Vikas Mushroom, Samlech or from other locality including Tapan Motors or shops. PW-9 Mast Ram has also admitted that Tapan Motors is at a distance of 200-250 meters from the alleged place of occurrence and road in question is a busy road. 17. Despite availability of independent persons, no one has been associated or tried to be associated during investigation and a person who was known to police was shown as an independent witness in the alleged proceedings. Thus, the conduct of police party is shrouded by suspicion. 18. PW-6 Dayanand has admitted that he was known to PW-7 HHC Jai Singh through wife of Manager of Railway Station as she was also serving in the police department at Dharampur. 19. DW-6 has stated that he is running canteen at Barog Railway Station. In cross-examination, he has also admitted that one train also used to cross Barog Station at 5.45 p.m. This fact renders his presence on the spot doubtful. Alleged occurrence took place about 5.15 p.m. and it was claimed that this witness was going home at 5.20 p.m. The witness is running a canteen at the Railway Station situated on a track on which limited numbers of trains run. At such a time, which was important for his business, he was not supposed to have left his canteen, in normal circumstances. 20. There is another material loophole in the prosecution story. As per prosecution, there was a box in back side of rear seat of the car covered by a seat cover having zip. The car was produced before PW-3 MHC Sunil Kumar alongwith other case property, who has stated that the case property remained intact till it remains in his possession and it was not tampered with. PW-8 Yoginder Kumar Mechanic has admitted that he had appeared in number of cases as a witness of police. He submits that he issued mechanical report Ex.PW-8/A endorsing version of prosecution story that there was a box in the rear seat of the car. However, when car was produced in the Court and shown to this witness, he has admitted that there was no such box in the rear seat of the car as had been mentioned in his report Ex.PW8/A. 21. However, when car was produced in the Court and shown to this witness, he has admitted that there was no such box in the rear seat of the car as had been mentioned in his report Ex.PW8/A. 21. PW-14 Vishwas Kumar, on seeing the apprehended car which was produced in the Court, has also admitted that there was no seat cover on the rear seat of car and also there was no box/khana on the back of rear seat and front glass of car was broken. 22. PW-12 HHC Narender Parkash has stated that he was MHC Malkhana, Police Station, Sadar Solan since 2010. The malkhana Incharge Sunil Kumar had handed over charge of malkhana of Police Station, Sadar Solan on 5.8.2010 to him. When the car was produced in the Court, it was found that the front glass of the car was broken but in taking and handing over charge of malkhana, no such fact has been mentioned. He has also stated that the case property was not tampered with and also was not aware that who had broken the glasses of the car. 23. PW-3 Sunil Kumar was also called for reexamination and was examined on 29.10.2010. He has admitted that front glass of car was broken on that date but he has stated that till the date of his examination-in-chief on 27.7.2010, the glass of car was not broken. 24. The defence propounded by respondents is that they had come to Chandigarh to purchase a car but before that they had come for sight seeing in hilly area, but some mechanical defect had developed in their car. They were having cash with them in the car and in order to grab such cash, they were falsely involved in this case by the police and in this regard an inquiry also going on against the police officials. PW-7 Jai Singh has admitted that an inquiry, on the allegation that Rs.2.6 lacs was taken by the police from the apprehended car, was going on. PW-9 has not denied this fact, but has shown his ignorance about such a complaint and inquiry being conducted on such complaint. 25. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of material witnesses of prosecution which go to the root of the case rendering prosecution story to be doubtful. 26. PW-9 has not denied this fact, but has shown his ignorance about such a complaint and inquiry being conducted on such complaint. 25. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of material witnesses of prosecution which go to the root of the case rendering prosecution story to be doubtful. 26. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that prosecution evidence cannot be treated as cogent, reliable, credible and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 27. 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. The accused has been acquitted by the trial Court. 28. From perusal and scrutiny of evidence, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and completely and acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused mis-carriage of justice. 29. After considering arguments of respective counsel for the parties and minutely examining the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. Consequently, present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, as also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back immediately.