Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1326 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Dhani Ram

2017-12-01

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/State, laying challenge to judgment dated 29.09.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 3-S/7 of 2007, whereby the accused/respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the accused persons”) were acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “ND&PS Act”). 2. The background facts, as projected by the prosecution, can tersely be summarized as under: On 25.09.2006, at about 08:15 p.m., police party laid a nakka at crossing of roads at Batalghati. A van, coming from village Batal, was stopped, in which two occupants (the accused persons ) were sitting. The accused persons disclosed their names as Dhani Ram and Het Ram. Accused Dhani Ram was driving the vehicle. As per the prosecution, witnesses Shri Diwakar Dutt, who has his tea stall at Batalghati, and Shri Naveen, who was going on his scooter at that time, were associated by the police and in their presence the van was searched. During the search of the dicky of the vehicle, a plastic carry bag was recovered and on checking it was found containing two packets of charas, which was in the form of wicks. Police took photographs of the bag and thereafter the bag containing charas, was taken into possession in presence of the witnesses. Police weighed the charas through the weighing scale of one Vinod Kumar, who has his tea stall near the place of recovery, and on weighment, charas was found to be 850 grams. Two samples, each 25 grams, were sealed separately. The remaining contraband was sealed in a cloth parcel. The independent witnesses and accused signed the parcels and sample impressions. The parcels were taken into possession, vide seizure memo, which was signed by the accused and the witnesses. NCB form was filled in on the spot, seal ‘A’ was affixed and the seal after its use was handed over to Shri Diwakar Dutt. Rukka was prepared and sent to Police Station for registration of FIR. The vehicle, along with its documents and key, and recovered contraband was taken into possession vide separate seizure memos. The spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. A special report was prepared, which was sent to Superintendent of Police, Solan. Rukka was prepared and sent to Police Station for registration of FIR. The vehicle, along with its documents and key, and recovered contraband was taken into possession vide separate seizure memos. The spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. A special report was prepared, which was sent to Superintendent of Police, Solan. Sample of charas was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, for examination and the examination of sample revealed that it was of charas. After conclusion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded not guilty. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 29.09.2007, acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(B) of the ND&PS Act, hence the present appeal. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued the impugned judgment is based on hypothetical reasoning, surmises and conjectures and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence, which has come on record to its right perspective. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court without any plausible reason discarded the testimonies of the official witnesses, which is unreasonable and thus the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside and the accused persons be convicted. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that out of two independent witnesses, one has gone hostile and another was not examined, thus the recovery of contraband does not stand proved. He has further argued that even the entire recovered substance has not been chemically examined. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the appeal may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the photographs taken on the spot, which demonstrates that the accused persons were present there, it can be concluded that the contraband was recovered from their exclusive and conscious possession. He has further argued that the statements of the official witnesses prove the prosecution case, therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the accused persons be convicted. 7. He has further argued that the statements of the official witnesses prove the prosecution case, therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the accused persons be convicted. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we have gone through the record carefully. 8. PW-1, Shri Diwakar Sharma, who is an independent witness, deposed that on 25.09.2006 he was going towards Batalghati and police met him and told that they caught a smuggler. He has further deposed that police showed him a plastic bag containing charas. As per this witness, he did not want to become a witness, but police cited him as a witness. This witness was declared hostile and was subjected to exhaustive cross-examination. He, in his cross-examination, has deposed that another independent witness, Shri Naveen Kumar, was already with the police when he arrived on the spot of occurrence. He has further deposed that a photographer was called on the spot and he took photographs. Police brought weighing scale and weights from the shop of PW-3, Shri Vinod Kumar, and on weighment charas was found to be 850 grams. He has further deposed that police took 50 grams of charas, which was divided into two parts and sealed the same in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with seal impression ‘A’. As per this witness, the remaining charas was in carry bag, which was sealed in a cloth parcel with the same seal. His signatures were obtained on the parcel as well as on the seal impression. Charas was taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-1/C, which was signed by him, Shri Naveen Kumar and the accused persons. The van was also taken into possession by the police, vide memo, Ex. PW-1/D, which bears his signatures. He has further deposed that when he reached the spot, police and the accused persons were on the road, near the shop of one Vinod Kumar. 9. PW-2, Shri Divesh Sharma, deposed that he was called on the spot by the police. The police told him that they have caught persons with charas. He took photographs of the van and of the persons, which are Ex. P-4 to Ex. P-10, negatives whereof are Ex. P-11. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that when he clicked photographs of the boot space of the van accused persons were sitting inside the vehicle. The police told him that they have caught persons with charas. He took photographs of the van and of the persons, which are Ex. P-4 to Ex. P-10, negatives whereof are Ex. P-11. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that when he clicked photographs of the boot space of the van accused persons were sitting inside the vehicle. PW-3, Shri Vinod Kumar, deposed that on the relevant day, when he was closing his shop, the police came and asked for weighing scale and weights. As per this witness, the police asked for a weight of one kilo and they did not ask for lesser weights. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he had weights of 50 grams and 100 grams. He did not have weight of 500 grams. In his presence the charas was weighed. He denied that he gave to the police weights of 500 grams, 50 grams and 100 grams. He denied that police took 50 grams of charas, as sample and the same was divided into two parts, each 25 grams and sealed in a cloth parcel, sealed with seal ‘A’. PW-4, Shri Suresh Kumar, is owner of van, having registration No. HP-01-0060. He has deposed that the above van, which was impounded by the police, was owned by him and accused Het Ram was his driver. As per this witness, the van was being plied as a taxi and it was booked from Dhami to Batal and then to Sunni. He issued certificate, Ex. PW- 4/A. PW-5, H.C. Yoginder Singh, Reader to Superintendent of Police, Solan, deposed that on 26.09.2006, Constable Payare Lal, brought the Special Report to the office of Superintendent of Police, Solan, copy of which is Ex. PW-5/A. He handed over the original and copy thereof to Superintendent of Police, who after making endorsement, returned the copy to him. 10. PW-6, HC Ramesh Chand, deposed that on 25.09.2006, Constable Payare Lal brought rukka, Ex. PW-6/A, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-6/B, was registered, which bears his signatures. He has further deposed that on 26.09.2006 SHO handed over to him a parcel, which was sealed with seal ‘A’ and two more sample parcels, said to be containing charas, which were sealed with five and eight seals along with sample of seal and NCB form. He made entry qua the same in the malkhana register at Sr. No. 456/03, copy of which is Ex. He made entry qua the same in the malkhana register at Sr. No. 456/03, copy of which is Ex. PW-6/C. On 28.09.2006 he handed over, vide RC No. 76/06, the parcel of sample, sample of seal and NCB form along with copy of FIR and copy of seizure memo, for being deposited in CFSL, Chandigarh, to Constable Payare Lal, however, the same were returned owing to some objection. As per this witness, the constable re-deposited the above case property with him and he, after getting the objection removed, handed over the case property to constable, but again the same was not deposited and was returned to him again. On 03.10.2006, after getting the objection removed, the case property was again sent through Constable Payare Lal, vide RC Ex. PW-6/D, to CFSL, Chandigarh. As per this witness, after deposit of the case property, RC was handed over to him. Under his custody the case property remained intact. 11. PW-7, Constable Pyare Lal, deposed that on 25.09.2006 he along with other police personnel was present at Batalghati. They intercepted a van, having registration No. HP-01-0060. Two occupants were sitting in the vehicle and they disclosed their names as Het Ram and Dhani Ram from the dicky of the vehicle plastic carry bag was recovered, which was kept near the speaker. Two independent witnesses, i.e., Shri Naveen and Shri Diwakar Dutt were also associated and in their presence the carry bag was checked, which contained charas. The recovered material was smelled and tasted and found to be charas. As per this witness, the carry bag was left at the place where it was originally kept and a photographer was called, who took photographs of the vehicle. Subsequently, the carry bag was taken out from the van and then to the shop of Shri Vinod Kumar (PW-3), wherefrom weighing scale and weights were brought and the recovered charas was weighed, which was found to be 850 grams. Two samples, each 25 grams, were taken and sealed in separate cloth parcels, which were sealed with seal impression ‘A’ and the remaining charas along with the carry bag was sealed in a cloth parcel having same seal impression. The accused and the witnesses signed the parcels and sample of seal. Columns of NCB form, Ex. PW-8/C, were filled in on the spot and seal impression ‘A’ was affixed thereon. The accused and the witnesses signed the parcels and sample of seal. Columns of NCB form, Ex. PW-8/C, were filled in on the spot and seal impression ‘A’ was affixed thereon. As per this witness, seal was handed over to witness Diwakar and rukka, Ex.PW-6/A, was sent, through Constable Payare Lal, to Police Station Arki, for registration of a case. After registration of the case, case file was handed over to him by Constable Payare Lal. Memo of identification of charas, Ex. PW- 1/A, was prepared, which was signed by witnesses Shri Naveen Kumar and Shri Diwakar. Memo qua taking sample was also prepared, which is Ex. PW-1/B. As per this witness, seal impression ‘A’ was obtained on memo, Ex. PW-1/B. Van having registration No. HP-01-0060 was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-1/D. He prepared the site plan, Ex.PW-8/D. Photographs of the proceedings were taken and statements of the witnesses were recorded. He prepared the special report, Ex. PW-5/A, which was sent to Superintendent of Police, Solan, through constable Payare Lal, and the receipt was handed over to him. After completion of the proceedings, he came back to Police Station along with the accused and case property was deposited with MHC along with the connected documents. After receipt of the report of the chemical examiner, Ex. PW-8/B, challan was presented in the Court. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that police personnel checked about 9-10 vehicles. He denied that no weights of 500, 100 and 50 grams were given to him by Shri Vinod Kumar. 12. PW-8, Shri Sita Ram, the then SHO, Police Station Arki, deposed that information qua the arrest of the accused persons was given to the relatives of the accused vide memo, Ex. PW-8/H. 13. The above prosecution evidence, now needs to be analyzed on the touchstone of its veracity. As far as the testimony of PW-1, Shri Diwakar Sharma, is concerned, he has denied that recovery was effected in his presence. PW-3 has further denied that any weight was taken from him. He deposed that he was not having weight of 500 grams. Though, as per the prosecution case, the police took the recovered charas and weighed the same. The other independent witness, i.e., Shri Naveen, was not examined by the prosecution, being won over. 14. PW-3 has further denied that any weight was taken from him. He deposed that he was not having weight of 500 grams. Though, as per the prosecution case, the police took the recovered charas and weighed the same. The other independent witness, i.e., Shri Naveen, was not examined by the prosecution, being won over. 14. The evidence, which has come on record, does not prove the recovery of charas in presence of the independent witnesses on the spot at the relevant time, as PW-1, Shri Diwakar Dutt, admitted his and the presence of other independent witness on the spot, but not in the manner as portrayed by the prosecution. PW-1 categorically deposed that when he reached the spot Shri Naveen Kumar was already there. The only independent witness examined by the prosecution, denied the search of the van in his presence, however, he admitted weighing of the contraband, taking of sample, making of the parcels and preparation of the documents. Thus, PW- 1, Shri Diwakar Dutt, admits the prosecution case except recovery of bag from the van and if the testimony of this witness is seen as a whole, he, by no stretch of imagination seems to be assisting or helping the accused persons. Another discrepancy in the prosecution case is that as per the story of the prosecution search of the van was conducted on the spot near the shop of Shri Vinod Kumar where on one side of it there is a water tank. However, photographs, Ex. P-1, Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7, depict that there is no water tank or any shop. The photographs only show a building adjacent to the road and a cemented pedestal. No crossing of the road has been shown. PW-2, Shri Divesh Sharma, Photographer, deposed that at about 08:00 p.m. police called him near Batalghati, at place known as Dam. Police told him that they caught persons with charas. He clicked photographs of the van and of the persons, which are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P10. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that there is dispensary near the Dam and residential houses near the dispensary. As per this witness, shop of Shri Vinod Kumar is at a distance of about half kilo meter from the dispensary. He clicked 3-4 photographs near the dispensary and subsequently went to the shop of Shri Vinod Kumar. P10. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that there is dispensary near the Dam and residential houses near the dispensary. As per this witness, shop of Shri Vinod Kumar is at a distance of about half kilo meter from the dispensary. He clicked 3-4 photographs near the dispensary and subsequently went to the shop of Shri Vinod Kumar. When he reached the spot, all persons were standing on the road and none was in the van. The police asked the accused persons to sit inside the van and then he clicked the photographs. As per this witness, a packet was put inside the boot space of the van by the police and then he clicked the photographs. Subsequently, the packet was opened by the police and he was asked to click photographs. He has further deposed that when he came to Batalghati, PW-1, Shri Diwakar Dutt and Naveen Kumar came there subsequently. 15. The testimony of PW-2, Shri Divesh Sharma, demonstrates that the alleged vehicle had not been intercepted by the police as portrayed by the prosecution. PW-2 virtually supported the version of PW-1, Shri Diwakar Sharma, who is an independent witness that PW-1 and one Shri Naveen Kumar came on the spot afterwards. As per PW-1, when he reached on the spot, the police was already having a bag with them. Thus, the place of recovery of charas, is not the same as shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan. In fact, it can safely be said that PW-1 was not present on the spot when the recovery was effected from the van. The material on record belies the prosecution story, qua the manner of recovery of charas from the accused persons. 16. Likewise, discrepancy is there qua weighing of the contraband. As per the testimony of PW-1, Shri Diwakar Dutt, for weighing the contraband police brought scale and weights from the shop of Shri Vinod Kumar (PW-3). He has further deposed that police separated 50 grams of charas and divided the same into two parts and sealed each part in a cloth parcel with seal impression ‘A’. PW-3, Shri Vinod Kumar, deposed that the police came to his shop when he was closing the shop and took weighing scale and weights. Thereafter he went to his house for taking meal. PW-3, Shri Vinod Kumar, deposed that the police came to his shop when he was closing the shop and took weighing scale and weights. Thereafter he went to his house for taking meal. He admitted that he had weights of 50 and 100 grams, but denied that he gave to the police weights of 500, 100 and 50 grams. This witness has also denied that the police took 50 grams of charas as sample and the same was divided into two parts, 25 grams each, which were sealed in a cloth parcel having seal impression ‘A’. He has denied that the remaining charas was also scaled in a cloth parcel with same scale. In fact, PW-7, Constable Pyare Lal, and PW-8, SHO Sita Ram, have not stated about weighing the charas inside the shop, but the photographs demonstrate so. Thus, conclusively it can be held that there are number of discrepancies in the prosecution case, which makes it difficult to rely on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Even if it is assumed that accused persons were the occupants of the alleged van, then also the recovery part of the prosecution case is highly doubtful. Thus, it cannot be held that 850 grams of charas was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused persons. 17. At the same point of time, though the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons, as there is no evidence to show that the alleged recovery was effected from the conscious possession of the accused persons. 18. Hon’ble Larger Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Mehboob Khan, 2013(3) Himachal Law Reporter (FB) 1834, wherein it has been held as under: “(a) After taking into consideration Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Law laid down by the apex Court as well as various High Courts discussed in detail hereinabove, we conclude that on account of non-consideration of the same by the Division Bench, which has rendered the judgment in Sunil’s case, correct law on the expert opinion and the reports assigned by the scientific expert after analyzing the exhibit has not been laid down. (b) We further conclude that on account of non-consideration of various reports of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime including Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 and to the contrary placing reliance on the text books, which basically are on medical jurisprudence, the Division Bench in Sunil’s case failed to assign correct meaning to ‘charas’ and ‘cannabis resin’, the necessary constituents of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. (c) In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, the Division Bench while deciding Sunil’s case supra has definitely erred in taking note of the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in three forms of cannabis i.e. Bhang, Ganja and Charas and hence, concluded erroneously that without there being no reference of the resin contents in the reports assigned by the Chemical Examiners in those cases, the contraband recovered is not proved to be Charas, as in our opinion, the Charas is a resinous mass and the presence of resin in the stuff analyzed without there being any evidence qua the nature of the neutral substance, the entire mass has to be taken as Charas. (d) There is no legal requirement of the presence of particular percentage of resin to be there in the sample and the presence of the resin in purified or crude form is sufficient to hold that the sample is that of Charas. The law laid down by the Division Bench in Sunil’s case that ‘for want of percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol or resin contents in the samples analyzed, the possibility of the stuff recovered from the accused persons being only Bhang i.e. the dried leaves of cannabis plant, possession of which is not an offence, cannot be ruled out’, is not a good law nor any such interpretation is legally possible. The percentage of resin contents in the stuff analyzed is not a determinative factor of small quantity, above smaller quantity and lesser than commercial quantity and the commercial quantity. Rather if in the entire stuff recovered from the accused, resin of cannabis is found present on analysis, whole of the stuff is to be taken to determine the quantity i.e. smaller, above smaller but lesser than commercial and commercial, in terms of the notification below Section 2 (vii-a) and (xxiii-a) of the Act. Rather if in the entire stuff recovered from the accused, resin of cannabis is found present on analysis, whole of the stuff is to be taken to determine the quantity i.e. smaller, above smaller but lesser than commercial and commercial, in terms of the notification below Section 2 (vii-a) and (xxiii-a) of the Act. (e) We have discussed the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 in detail hereinabove and noted that resin becomes cannabis resin only when it is separated from the plant. The separated resin is cannabis resin not only when it is in ‘purified’ form, but also when in ‘crude’ form or still mixed with other parts of the plant. Therefore, the resin mixed with other parts of the plant i.e. in ‘crude’ form is also charas within the meaning of the Convention and the Legislature in its wisdom has never intended to exclude the weight of the mixture i.e. other parts of the plant in the resin unless or until such mixture proves to be some other neutral substance and not that of other parts of the cannabis plant. Once the expert expressed the opinion that after conducting the required tests, he found the resin present in the stuff and as charas is a resinous mass and after conducting tests if in the opinion of the expert, the entire mass is a sample of charas, no fault can be found with the opinion so expressed by the expert nor would it be appropriate to embark upon the admissibility of the report on any ground, including non-mentioning of the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol or resin contents in the sample. (f) We are also not in agreement with the findings recorded by the Division Bench in Sunil’s case that “mere presence of tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hair without there being any mention of the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in a sample of charas is not an indicator of the entire stuff analyzed to be charas” for the reason that the statute does not insist for the presence of percentage in the stuff of charas and mere presence of tetrahydrocannabinol along with cystolithic hair in a sample stuff is an indicator of the same being the resin of cannabis plant because the cystolithic hair are present only in the cannabis plant. When after observing the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hair, the expert arrives at a conclusion that the sample contains the resin contents, it is more than sufficient to hold that the sample is of charas and the view so expressed by the expert normally should be honoured and not called into question. Of course, neutral material which is not obtained from cannabis plant cannot be treated as resin of the cannabis plants. The resin rather must have been obtained from the cannabis plants may be in ‘crude’ form or ‘purified’ form. In common parlance charas is a hand made drug made from extract of cannabis plant. Therefore, any mixture with or without any neutral material of any of the forms of cannabis is to be considered as a contraband article. No concentration and percentage of resin is prescribed for ‘charas’ under the Act.” 19. In addition to non-sending of the whole of the recovered substance for chemical examination, as has been held in the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case referred (supra), the prosecution has even failed to prove the recovery of charas from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused persons, as the only examined independent witness has not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution did not examine the other independent witness. Though the conviction can be based on the statements of the official witnesses, if their statements are confidence inspiring, but in the present case, the statements of the official witnesses do not inspire confidence, as has been discussed hereinabove. The statements of the official prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions, so the only conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts. Hence, there is no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 20. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 21. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 22. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: 1. An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. 3. Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. 4. An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.” 23. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.” 23. In view of the settled legal position, as aforesaid, and on the basis of material that has come on record, it is more than safe to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons and the findings of acquittal, as recorded by the learned Trial Court, needs no interference, as the same are the result of appreciating the evidence correctly and to its true perspective. Accordingly, the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 24. In view of the above, the appeal, so also pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. Bail bonds are cancelled.