JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 25.8.2008 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2008, whereby it while reversing the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents (for short “accused”) for the offences charged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.11.2001 HC Raj Kumar, In-charge Police Post Holi was on patrolling at place Tiyari Bridge along with HHC Dharam Chand No. 91, HHC Prithi Chand No. 144 and B.O Sh. Makholi Ram, Jagdish Kumar Guard and Gian Chand forest worker. At about 5.00 a.m. when the police party was at Tiyari Bridge three persons came from Holi side, out of which two persons had been carrying on sack each in their hands and on seeing the police party they tried to fled away. Two persons were carrying sack and on seeing the police party they tried to flee away, but accused No.1 and 2, present appellants, were apprehended while one person fled away from the spot. On checking the sack of accused No.1, it was found containing pieces of aluminum wire in small pieces, six blades and two hacksaw blades while the sack of accused No.2 was found containing one bundle of aluminum wire and small pieces of ladder. The accused persons failed to account for the above said articles which were taken into possession through a seizure memo. The investigating Officer prepared Rukka and sent the same to the police Station Bharmour on the basis of which FIR was registered. On 8.11.2001 the complainant had given an application to the police that one ladder which was kept by him behind his residence has been stolen and the complainant identified the pieces of ladder belonging to him. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court qua theirs committing offence punishable under Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court qua theirs committing offence punishable under Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, they did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction qua the accused. However in an appeal preferred by the respondents herein before the learned Sessions Judge Chamba, the latter Court returned findings of acquittal in their favour. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. Vide recovery memos comprised in Ex.PW-1/A and PW-1/B recovery of items/property allegedly stolen by the accused/respondents stood effectuated also with PW-1 a witness thereto testifying in corroboration to the contents which occur there within thereupon it stands canvassed by the learned Deputy Advocate General qua the aforesaid constituting formidable pieces of evidence for reversing the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba. The aforesaid submission for its standing construed to be holding immense potency it is enjoined to be read in conjunction with the testification of PW-8 besides in coagulation with the factum of the Investigating Officer concerned testifying qua his not purveying copies thereof to the accused though he stood enjoined to purvey them to the accused. The aforesaid submission for its standing construed to be holding immense potency it is enjoined to be read in conjunction with the testification of PW-8 besides in coagulation with the factum of the Investigating Officer concerned testifying qua his not purveying copies thereof to the accused though he stood enjoined to purvey them to the accused. A combined reading whereof purveys no conclusion than of their preparation standing engineered besides invented at the instance of the Investigating Officer hence his concert to hide them arouse-able from his not purveying them to the accused renders any reliance thereupon for nailing findings of conviction against the accused to be grossly inapt. 10. Moreover an allusion to the testification of the Investigating Officer who deposed as PW-8 is imperative for unearthing therefrom whether the relevant recovery memos aforesaid hold efficacy, conspicuously when recovery of the relevant stolen items stood effectuated thereunder from the accused on theirs standing nabbed by the investigating Officer concerned at the place and time enumerated therein. In the event of the investigating Officer hence omitting to underscore in his testification held in his examination-in-chief the trite factum of his effectuating recovery of the relevant stolen items from the possession of the accused in the manner reflected in the recovery memos, the invincible conclusion therefrom would be qua the contents reflected therein suffering erosion. 11. A close analysis of the testimony of PW-8 unveils qua in his testimony comprised in his examination-in-chief his though making a communication therein in tandem with the recitals occurring in the recovery memos yet his testification holding be speakings therein qua his nabbing the accused at the place and time reflected therein gets blunted when analyzed in consonance with the hitherto erected inference qua the relevant memos being discardable. With the efficacy of Ex. PW-1/A and PW-1/B standing negated whereupon hence it has to be concluded of the best evidence in proof of the charge not acquiring any immense potency. 12. Be that as it may the veracity of recovery memos stands enfeebled by the factum of a disclosure occurring there within qua the recovery of stolen items standing effectuated from the possession of the accused on 3.11.2001 in the manner reflected there within even when the aforesaid factum stood detected by PW-6 on 2.11.2001 yet he omitted to promptly thereat lodge a complaint qua the case property standing stolen. The effect of recovery memos aforesaid standing prepared on 3.11.2001 whereas PW-6 despite detecting the relevant theft to occur on 2.11.2001 his belatedly on 7.11.2001 lodging a report qua the relevant theft with the police station concerned constrains a conclusion qua the preceding effectuation of recovery of the relevant items from the possession of the accused under the memos aforesaid arising not in sequel to the lodging of the apposite complaint rather hence their preparation not holding any connectivity with the alleged theft which occurred at the relevant site whereat the relevant stolen items were kept, conspicuously when their preparation occurred not subsequent to the lodging of the report rather contrarily occurred prior thereto. The inference qua Ex.PW-1/A and PW-1/B for reasons afore-stated remaining unproven by the prosecution nor thereupon hence the begetting any connectivity vis-à-vis the theft of the relevant items from the relevant site whereat they stood kept or stored stands enhanced by the factum of the prosecution witnesses acquiescing to the suggestions put to them by the learned defence counsel while he held them to cross-examination qua all the items which stood purportedly recovered thereunder being easily available in the market besides strength to the aforesaid inference stands garnered by the factum of PW-6 besides other relevant prosecution witnesses not making any vivid disclosure in their respective testifications qua any mark existing on the relevant property/items whereupon they stood rendered to be distinguishably the property of the complainant also thereupon the factum of the relevant items/property standing owned by the complainant standing emphatically established remains unproven rendering hence the relevant charge to which the accused stood subjected to founder. 13. A wholesome analysis of evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned Appellate Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court merit interference. 14. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.