JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The State has come in appeal against Judgment dated 1.10.2008 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2008. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW-1 Rajinder Kumar was the Principal of Aryan Public School. The School was locked on 24.1.2006. There were holidays on 25.1.2006 and 26.1.2006. When the School was opened on the morning of 27.1.2006, it was found that the door of the computer room was open and the computer was missing. Somebody had committed theft of the computer during the vacation. It was suspected that the accused had committed the theft of the computer. Matter was reported to the Police. FIR Ext. PW-12/B was registered. Investigation was carried out. Site plan Ext. PW-13/A was prepared. Accused was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-13/B that he had kept the computer in the Dhaba of Jagdish Chand at Tihra. Earlier PW-3 Gian Chand had seen the accused carrying the bundle on 26.1.2006 and Arun Kumar had taken the accused to Tihra in a taxi bearing registration No. HP-14-0209. Lock Ext. P1 was produced by Bhure Lal, which was identified by the complainant. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. Trial Court convicted the accused on 2.6.2008 for committing offence under Section 457 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Accused was also convicted under Section 380 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment, for one month. Accused filed an appeal against the Judgment dated 2.6.2008, before the learned Sessions Judge. He allowed the appeal vide Judgment dated 1.10.2008. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person. 5. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, has supported the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 1.10.2008. 6. He allowed the appeal vide Judgment dated 1.10.2008. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person. 5. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, has supported the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 1.10.2008. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-2 Meena Kumari testified that she was posted as a Teacher in the Aryan Public School. She reached the school at 8.30 AM on 27.1.2006. Nirmala Devi told that computer room was open and computer was missing. She found that that the articles lying inside the room were missing. She narrated this incident to the Principal. She was working in the school for the last 2-3 years. 8. PW-3 Gian Chand has stated that he was sitting in shop on 26.1.2006, when he saw accused carrying a dish antenna and some other articles which were tied by him in a bundle. Accused was going towards the shop of Jayoti Tyre and the owner of shop told him that the accused had brought a dish antenna. 9. PW-4 Jayoti Parkash stated that accused had kept a dish antenna outside his shop. When he made inquiry from the accused, accused told that he was the owner of the dish antenna. 10. PW-5 Arun Kumar testified that he was owner of taxi No. HP-14-0209. He had carried the accused to Tihra. 11. PW-6 Lakhvir Singh testified that accused disclosed that he had kept computer in the Dhaba. Dhaba was owned by Jagdish. Articles were recovered by the police in his presence. He admitted that he was related to the complainant. He was associated by the police only on one day i.e. 29.1.2006. 12. PW-6/A Ashwani Kumar has testified that the computer was recovered in his presence by the police. 13. PW-10 Nirmala Devi deposed that she was working in the School. When she tried to open the lock of the school, it was not locked. Computer was missing. 14. PW-13 Jagdish Chand has not supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that the accused has not kept any belongings with him. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. 15. PW-6 Lakhvir Singh, in his cross-examination deposed that the accused remained sitting in the jeep. Computer was missing. 14. PW-13 Jagdish Chand has not supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that the accused has not kept any belongings with him. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. 15. PW-6 Lakhvir Singh, in his cross-examination deposed that the accused remained sitting in the jeep. He was caught by the constables. Only the police personnel have gone to the shop of Jagdish. Jagdish opened the lock. Police collected the computer from the shop. PW-6/A Ashwani Kumar has testified only to the extent that computer was recovered in his presence by the police. They have not stated that the accused has made a specific disclosure statement that he had concealed the computer at a particular place and only he knew about it and he could get the same recovered. PW-13 SI Jagdish Chand, in his cross-examination, admitted that there were many shops in Tihra Bazaar, however, no local witnesses were associated by the police for recovery. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, thus, cannot be termed to be perverse. 16. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. Accordingly, we find no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal is thus dismissed. All pending applications, are also disposed of. Bail bonds of the accused person are discharged.