JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against judgment dated 20.3.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No.1 Mandi HP in case No. 343-II/1999 titled State of HP Vs. Devi Ram and others. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by prosecution that on 30.7.1999 at about 3.30 AM at place Sagamor near Aut market accused persons were found transporting ten sleepers of Deodar and Kail trees without valid and legal permit in maruti van having registration No. HPY-1258. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons were dis-honestly carrying sleepers belonging to forest department. It is further alleged by prosecution that on the basis of rukka Ext PW13/A FIR Ext PW13/G was registered. It is further alleged by prosecution that investigating officer visited the spot and prepared site plan Ext PW13/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that investigating officer took into possession vehicle having registration No. HPY-1258 along with sleepers of Deodar and Kail and seizure memo Ext PW2/A was prepared. It is further alleged by prosecution that investigating officer also obtained valuation of seized timber vide document Ext PW6/A. It is further alleged by prosecution that investigating officer took specimen of hammer Ext PW6/A. Investigating agency prepared spot map Ext PW5/B and memo of demarcation Ext PW5/C. It is further alleged by prosecution that jamabandi also took into possession and statement of accused persons under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that site plans Ext PW13/C to Ext PW13/F prepared. It is further alleged by prosecution that photographs Ext PW13/K-1 to Ext PW13/K-18 and negatives Ext PW13/K-19 to Ext PW13/K-36 also took into possession. Learned trial court framed charges against accused persons punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and also framed charge under Section 379 IPC. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Learned trial Court acquitted all accused persons under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and under Section 379 IPC. 4. Feeling aggrieved against judgment of acquittal State of HP filed present appeal. 5. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons and also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise determination in present appeal. 1. Whether criminal appeal No. 177 of 2006 titled State of HP Vs. Feeling aggrieved against judgment of acquittal State of HP filed present appeal. 5. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons and also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise determination in present appeal. 1. Whether criminal appeal No. 177 of 2006 titled State of HP Vs. Devi Ram and others is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?. 2. Final order. 7. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7.1 PW1 Thakur Singh has stated that on dated 30.4.1999 he was called by police officials in the morning and he measured seized woods. He has stated that there was no hammer mark upon the woods. He has stated that ten sleepers were recovered out of which two sleepers were Deodar and eight sleepers were Kail. In cross examination he has stated that vehicle was parked in the market. He has denied suggestion that sleepers were found in police station. He has stated that he does not know that who was the owner of sleepers and he also does not know that from where sleepers were recovered. He has stated that he does not know whether sleepers were owned by government or owned by non-government agency. 7.2 PW2 Ram Rattan has stated that he joined investigation. He has stated that vehicle was parked upon a curve. He has stated that ten sleepers were found. He has stated that Block officer and Range officer have measured the sleepers and took photographs. He has stated that seizure memo of sleepers and vehicle is Ext PW2/A and he has signed the document as marginal witness. He has stated that he does not know that from where sleepers were brought by police officials. He has stated that he does not know who was the owner of sleepers. 7.3. PW3 Tek Chand has stated that accused persons were not searched in his presence. He has stated that no disclosure statement was given by co-accused Devi Ram in his presence. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. Witness has admitted his signature on memo Ext PW3/A. 7.4 PW4 Piaray Lal has stated that accused persons did not give any disclosure statement in his presence. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that he has resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused persons. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. Witness has admitted his signature on memo Ext PW3/A. 7.4 PW4 Piaray Lal has stated that accused persons did not give any disclosure statement in his presence. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that he has resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused persons. 7.5 PW5 Abhimanu has stated that in the year 1999 he was posted as investigating officer. He has stated that on 29.7.1999 he along with other police officials operated naka. He has stated that during mid night at 3.30 PM maruti van came from Kullu side. He has stated that driver of the vehicle stopped maruti van at a distance 20/25 yards and tried to run away. He has stated that on suspicion he was caught. He has stated that the driver of vehicle disclosed his name as Devi Ram. He has stated that registration number of the vehicle was HPY-1258. He has stated that vehicle was checked and ten sleepers of Deodar were found. He has stated that driver could not produce permit and thereafter vehicle and sleepers were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW2/A and sleepers were measured vide memo Ext PW5/A and value of the sleepers found to the tune of Rs. 18000/- (Eighteen thousand). He has stated that site plan was prepared and submitted by prosecution as per the versions recorded. He has denied suggestion that sleepers were not recovered from vehicle. He has denied suggestion that driver namely coaccused Devi Ram went to his brother house because defect occurred in vehicle. He has denied suggestion that seizure memo Ext PW5/C was prepared in police station. 7.6 PW6 Kuldip Singh Deputy Ranger has stated that on dated 30.7.1999 he was called by investigating agency at police station. He has stated that he visited at police station along with Sh. Kishori Lal Deputy Ranger. He has stated that there was no hammer mark upon sleepers. He has stated that memo Ext PW6/A was prepared. He has admitted that sleepers upon which he marked hammer not shown to him in Court. 7.7 PW7 Head Constable Harbans Singh has statedthat he was on general duty at police station Aut. Kishori Lal Deputy Ranger. He has stated that there was no hammer mark upon sleepers. He has stated that memo Ext PW6/A was prepared. He has admitted that sleepers upon which he marked hammer not shown to him in Court. 7.7 PW7 Head Constable Harbans Singh has statedthat he was on general duty at police station Aut. He has stated that on 29.7.1999 ten sleepers were took into possession from vehicle having registration No. HPY-1258 which was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW2/A. He has stated that marginal witnesses have also signed in his presence. He has stated that sleepers were also measured in his presence. He has stated that co-accused Mukesh Kumar has given disclosure statement that he could produce Rs. 3900/- (Three thousand nine hundred) which he obtained after sale of sleepers. He has stated that amount to the tune of Rs. 3900/- (Three thousand nine hundred) was recovered as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Mukesh Kumar. He has denied suggestion that no sleepers were recovered from the possession of accused persons. He has denied suggestion that sleepers were not measured. He has denied suggestion that false case filed against accused persons. 7.8. PW8 Kishori Lal has stated that he was posted as Block Officer in the year 1999 and he was associated in investigation in the year 1999. He has stated that vehicle No. HPY-1258 was caught and wooden sleepers were found in the vehicle. He has stated that wooden sleepers were also measured. He has stated that two sleepers were of Deodar and eight sleepers were of kail trees. He has stated that thereafter hammers were marked upon sleepers. He has stated that vehicle and wooden sleepers were not recovered in his presence. In cross examination he has stated that he was called in police station Aut. He has stated that he is not familiar with accused persons. He has stated that no accused was present in police station Aut. He has stated that he prepared report as per direction of police officials Ext PW5/A. 7.9 PW9 Ram Kishan has stated that he joined investigation of case. He has stated that no amount of Rs.3900/- (Three thousand nine hundred) recovered in his presence from co-accused Mukesh. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that he resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused persons. He has stated that no amount of Rs.3900/- (Three thousand nine hundred) recovered in his presence from co-accused Mukesh. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that he resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused persons. He has denied suggestion that Rs.3900/- (Three thousand nine hundred) recovered in his presence from co-accused Mukesh. 7.10 PW10 Vishav Dev has stated that on 4.8.1999 he joined investigation. He has stated that co-accused Chuni Lal, Tek Ram and Pekh Ram have located the forest and told that two sleepers of Deodar and six sleepers of kail were sold to co-accused Mukesh. He has stated that one axe and one saw machine were also recovered. 7.11 PW11 Sukh Dev has stated that in the year 1999 he was guard in forest department. He has stated that in his presence co-accused Chunni Lal, Tek Ram and Pekh Ram were present. He has stated that he also signed Ext PW10/B and Ext PW10/C. He has stated that photographs took into possession. He has stated that accused persons did not give any disclosure statement in his presence to the effect that accused persons have cut trees from forest. He has admitted that T.D is granted to the villagers and villagers used to cut the tree on the basis of T.D. He has stated that axe and saw machine were not recovered in his presence. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. 7.12 PW12 Inspector Vidya Dhar has stated that in the year 1999 he was posted as station house officer at police station Aut. He has stated that FIR was registered and after completion of investigation he prepared challan. 7.13 PW13 ASI Subhash Chand has stated that naka was operated at National High way No. 21 at a distance of about 500 metre from police station. He has stated that at about 3.30 AM a maruti van came from Kullu side. He has stated that when the driver of vehicle saw police officials he tried to run away but he was caught with the help of police officials. He has stated that driver disclosed his name as Devi Ram. He has stated that ten sleepers without hammer mark recovered from vehicle. He has stated that accused persons did not produce any permit. He has stated that wooden sleepers were measured. He has stated that the number of vehicle was HPY-1258. He has stated that driver disclosed his name as Devi Ram. He has stated that ten sleepers without hammer mark recovered from vehicle. He has stated that accused persons did not produce any permit. He has stated that wooden sleepers were measured. He has stated that the number of vehicle was HPY-1258. He has stated that wooden sleepers were measured vide memo Ext PW5/A. He has stated that photographs of the spot obtained and negative of photographs were also obtained. He has stated that thereafter after completion of investigation file of the case was handed over to SHO Vidya Sagar. He has denied suggestion that no wooden sleepers found in the vehicle. He has denied suggestion that he recorded the statement of witnesses Tek Chand and Piaray Lal according to his own will. He has denied suggestion that he prepared false case against co-accused Chunni Lal, Tek Chand and Pekh Ram. 8. The statements of accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C Accused persons did not examine any defence witness. Learned trial Court acquitted accused persons. 9. Following documentaries evidence adduced by prosecution. (1) Ext.PW2/A is recovery memo of vehicle No. HPY-1258 and recovery of eight sleepers of kail and two sleepers of Deodar. (2) Ext.PW3/B, Ext PW3/D to Ext PW3/F are disclosure statements of accused persons namely Mukesh Kumar, Chunni Lal, Pekh Ram, Tek Ram. (3) Ext.PW5/A is document of measurement of seized timber. (4) Ext.PW5/B is spot map. (5) Ext.PW5/C is memo of purchase of sleepers in consideration amount of Rs.3900/-(6)Ext.PW6/A3 is specimen of hammer. (7) Ext.PW7/A is recovery memo of Rs.3900/- from co-accused Mukesh Kumar. (8) Ext.P1, Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 are sleepers, axe and saw respectively. (9) Ext.PW13/A is ruka. (10) Ext.PW13/B, Ext.PW13/C and Ext.PW13/D to Ext.PW13/F are spot maps. (11) Ext.PW13/G is FIR. (12) Ext.PW13K-1 to Ext PW13K-18 are photographs. (13) Ext PW13k-19 to Ext PW13k-36 are negatives of photographs. 10. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that judgment of learned trial Court is based upon surmises and conjectures and learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in slip shod and perfunctory manner and learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution in proper perspective and reasoning of learned trial Court is unsustainable and on these grounds appeal filed by State be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Seizure memo Ext.PW2/A dated 30.7.1999 relating to recovery of two deodar sleepers and eight sleepers of Kail trees from vehicle No. HPY-1258 placed on record is substantial piece of evidence. Court has carefully perused the contents of seizure memo Ext.PW2/A placed on record. Eye witnesses of seizure memo Ext PW2/A are Ram Rattan PW2, Kishori Lal PW8, Abhimanyu PW5, Subhash Chand and Ram Lal. Prosecution did not examine marginal witnesses of seizure memo Ext.PW2/A namely Subhash Chand and Ram Lal. Prosecution only examined Ram Rattan PW2, Kishori Lal PW8 and Abhimanyu PW5 who are eye witnesses of recovery of two sleepers of Deodar and eight sleepers of Kail. Court has carefully perused testimonies of PW2 Ram Rattan, PW5 Abhimanyu and PW8 Kishori Lal who are eye witnesses of seizure memo of sleepers Ext PW2/A. PW2 Ram Rattan has specifically stated in positive manner in cross examination that he does not know from where sleepers were brought and he has also specifically stated in positive manner that he does not know who was the owner of sleepers. It is held that PW2 Ram Rattan did not support the prosecution story as alleged by prosecution. Court has carefully perused testimony of Kishori Lal PW8 who is another eye witness of seizure memo of sleepers Ext PW2/A. PW8 Kishori Lal has specifically stated in positive manner when he appeared in witness box that he was called in police station. PW8 Kishori Lal has stated in positive manner that vehicle and sleepers were not recovered in his presence. PW8 has specifically stated in positive manner when he appeared in witness box that he does not know accused persons. PW8 has also stated that accused persons were not present. PW8 has also stated that in police station many sleepers were stored. PW8 has also stated that case property was not shown to him in Court during trial. PW5 Abhimanyu has supported the prosecution story as alleged by prosecution. There is material contradiction between testimonies of PW2 Ram Rattan, PW8 Kishori Lal and PW5 Abhimanyu who are eye witnesses of recovery of sleepers from vehicle No. HPY-1258. PW8 has also stated that case property was not shown to him in Court during trial. PW5 Abhimanyu has supported the prosecution story as alleged by prosecution. There is material contradiction between testimonies of PW2 Ram Rattan, PW8 Kishori Lal and PW5 Abhimanyu who are eye witnesses of recovery of sleepers from vehicle No. HPY-1258. In view of the fact that there is material contradiction between testimonies of eye witnesses relating to recovery of sleepers from vehicle No. HPY-1258 Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused persons on the basis of contradictory testimonies of eye witnesses of recovery of sleepers from vehicle No. HPY-1258. 11. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the statement of co-accused person Mukesh Kumar Ext PW3/B recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused testimony of marginal witnesses of disclosure statement Ext PW3/B. As per prosecution story co-accused Mukesh has given disclosure statement Ext PW3/B under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act that ten sleepers were sold in consideration amount of Rs. 3900/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred only) and coaccused Mukesh has kept the consideration amount in his residential house. Marginal witnesses of disclosure document recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act Ext PW3/B are Piare Lal PW4 and LHC Harbans PW7. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of Piare Lal PW4 and LHC Harbans Lal. PW4 Piare Lal when appeared in witness box has stated in positive manner that co-accused Mukesh did not give any disclosure statement Ext PW3/B under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act in his presence. PW4 Piare Lal was declared hostile by prosecution. PW4 did not support the prosecution story relating to disclosure statement of co-accused Mukesh Kumar. Testimonies of eye witnesses PW4 and LHC Harbans Lal PW7 are materially contradictory to each other. In view of material contradiction in testimonies of PW4 Piare Lal and PW7 Harbans Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused persons. 12. Testimonies of eye witnesses PW4 and LHC Harbans Lal PW7 are materially contradictory to each other. In view of material contradiction in testimonies of PW4 Piare Lal and PW7 Harbans Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused persons. 12. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the recovery memo of Rs.3900/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred only) as per disclosure statement of co-accused Mukesh and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused document Ext.PW7/A relating to recovery of Rs.3900/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred only) placed on record from coaccused Mukesh Kumar. Marginal witnesses of document Ext PW7/A are Ram Kishan PW9 and LHC Harbans Lal PW7. PW9 Ram Kishan ward member of Panchayat did not support the prosecution story. PW9 has specifically stated in positive manner that amount of Rs.3900/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred only) was not recovered in his presence from coaccused Mukesh. PW9 has specifically stated that co-accused has not given any statement before him that co-accused Mukesh has received Rs. 3900/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred only) from sale of ten sleepers. PW9 Ram Kishan was declared hostile by prosecution. PW9 Ram Kishan did not support the prosecution story as alleged by prosecution. In view of material contradiction between statements of PW9 Ram Kishan and PW7 Harbans Singh who are marginal witnesses of seizure memo of Rs.3900/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred only) it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused persons. 13. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the disclosure statement given by co-accused Chuni Lal Ext.PW3/D whereby accused persons have kept the sleepers in illegal manner and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Marginal witnesses of disclosure statement of co-accused Chuni Lal recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act Ext.PW3/D are Tek Chand PW3 and Piare Lal PW4. Court has carefully perused testimonies of PW3 Tek Chand and PW4 Piare Lal. Marginal witnesses of disclosure statement of co-accused Chuni Lal recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act Ext.PW3/D are Tek Chand PW3 and Piare Lal PW4. Court has carefully perused testimonies of PW3 Tek Chand and PW4 Piare Lal. PW3 Tek Chand has specifically stated when he appeared in witness box that no disclosure statement was given by co-accused Chuni Lal in his presence. PW3 Tek Chand was declared hostile by prosecution. Similarly PW4 Piare Lal has also stated when appeared in witness box that no disclosure statement was given by co-accused Chuni Lal. In view of testimonies of PW3 Tek Chand and PW4 Piare Lal that no disclosure statement was given by co-accused Chuni Lal in their presence it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused persons. 14. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated disclosure statement given by coaccused Pekh Ram Ext.PW3/E and on this ground appeal filed by State be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused disclosure statement Ext.PW3/E placed on record given by coaccused Pekh Ram. Marginal witnesses of disclosure statement are PW3 Tek Chand and PW4 Piare Lal. Court has also perused testimonies of PW3 Tek Chand and PW4 Piare Lal. PW3 Tek Chand has specifically stated in positive manner that no disclosure statement was given by co-accused Pekh Ram in his presence. Both PW3 and PW4 were declared hostile by prosecution. In view of the above stated facts doubt has created in the mind of Court. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict accused persons in view of testimonies of PW3 Tek Chand and PW4 Piare Lal relating to disclosure statement Ext PW3/C by coaccused Pekh Ram. 15. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated document Ext.PW3/F i.e. disclosure statement given by co-accused Tek Ram relating to mode of preparation of sleepers and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused document Ext.PW3/F placed on record. Marginal witnesses of document Ext.PW3/F are Tek Chand and Piare Lal. Court has carefully perused document Ext.PW3/F placed on record. Marginal witnesses of document Ext.PW3/F are Tek Chand and Piare Lal. PW3 Tek Chand and PW4 Piare Lal have specifically stated that no disclosure statement was given by co-accused Tek Ram in their presence. In view of testimonies of PW3 Tek Chand and PW4 Piare Lal it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused persons. 16. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that recovery of saw is proved beyond reasonable doubt vide document Ext PW11/E and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Marginal witnesses of recovery memo Ext PW11/E of saw are Vishav Dev PW10, Jagan Nath, Roop Lal and Sukh Dev PW11. Prosecution did not examine marginal witnesses namely Jagan Nath and Roop Lal. Prosecution examined PW10 Vishav Dev and PW11 Sukh Dev. Court has perused testimonies of PW10 Vishav Dev and PW11 Sukh Dev carefully. PW10 Vishav Dev retired Range Officer has specifically stated that case property is not shown to him in Court and PW10 has specifically stated in positive manner that he could not identify the accused persons in Court. PW10 Vishav Dev has specifically stated in positive manner that TD wood was also sanctioned to villagers and people were cutting the wood on the basis of T.D. In view of the fact that PW10 Vishav Dev retired Range Officer has stated that he could not identify the accused persons in Court. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict accused persons. PW11 Sukh Dev forest guard has specifically stated when he appeared in witness box that he could not state that axe and saw are same. In cross examination PW11 Sukh Dev has stated that accused persons have not given any statement that they have cut the sleepers from forest. PW11 Sukh Dev has specifically stated that sleepers were not shown to him in Court. PW11 Sukh Dev has also stated in positive manner that axe and saw were not recovered in his presence. In view of above stated testimonies of PW10 and PW11 it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict accused persons. 17. PW11 Sukh Dev has specifically stated that sleepers were not shown to him in Court. PW11 Sukh Dev has also stated in positive manner that axe and saw were not recovered in his presence. In view of above stated testimonies of PW10 and PW11 it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict accused persons. 17. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the recovery of axe as per document Ext PW11/D is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Witnesses of recovery memo of axe Ext PW11/D are Vishav Dev, Roop Lal and Sukh Dev. Prosecution did not examine Vishav Dev and Roop Lal who are marginal witnesses of recovery of axe. Prosecution has only examined PW11 Sukh Dev. Court has perused testimony of PW11 Sukh Dev. PW11 Sukh Dev has stated that axe was not recovered in his presence. In view of above stated facts Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict accused persons because two views have emerged in present case. 18. It is well settled law that when two views emerged in prosecution story then benefit of doubt should be given to accused persons. It is well settled law that if two views have emerged in the prosecution case then view favourable to the accused has to be taken into consideration. see: 1998(2) SLJ 1408 titled Shashi Pal and others vs. State of H.P. see: 1993(1) SLJ 405 titled State of H.P. vs. Sudarshan Singh. Also see SLJ 1996(2) 890 Apex Court titled Mulak Raj vs. State of Haryana. 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. Also see SLJ 1996(2) 890 Apex Court titled Mulak Raj vs. State of Haryana. 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 trial Court are perverse or otherwise unsustainable (iii) That appellate Court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact learned trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible fact (iv) That learned trial court 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 titled State of U.P Vs. Ram Veer Singh and others. 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. 19. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned trial Court has given importance to minor contradictions and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the entire oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that there is material contradiction between testimonies of prosecution witnesses and it is further held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 20. In view of findings upon point No.1 judgment of learned trial Court is affirmed by way of giving benefit of doubt to accused persons. Appeal filed by State of H.P. is dismissed. File of learned trial Court along with certified copy of judgment be sent back forthwith. Criminal appeal No. 177 of 2006 is disposed of. In view of findings upon point No.1 judgment of learned trial Court is affirmed by way of giving benefit of doubt to accused persons. Appeal filed by State of H.P. is dismissed. File of learned trial Court along with certified copy of judgment be sent back forthwith. Criminal appeal No. 177 of 2006 is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.