JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State against the judgment rendered, on 4.4.2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., upon, Criminal Appeal No. 7-S/10 of 2006, whereby, he set aside the judgment of conviction, and, sentence recorded, upon, the accused/respondent herein, by the learned trial Court. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that the complainant Shanta Aggarwal alongwith husband and daughter residing at Kandaghat near PWD rest House. She has purchased some ornaments in connection with marriage of her daughter and has kept the said ornaments in steel almirah in her house. On 5.10.2000, when she and her daughter had gone to Dharampur after locking their house and she was informed by some unknown person telephonically that some one has broken the lock of her house and has committed theft therefrom at which information was also given to the police. The police proceeded towards the spot and in the meantime Shanta Aggarwal also rushed towards her house and after checking her house and the articles kept therein, she found that gold ornaments alongwith currency note of Rs.1800/- have been stolen from her house by some unknown persons at which she got recorded her statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. before the police. On the basis of which FIR was registered at police station, Kandaghat. The police took into possession a box in which ornaments were contained and which was lying at the spot. One kara of silver was also recovered from nearby house of Shanta Aggarwal, which was also seized in presence of the witnesses by the police vide separate memo. Accused was arrested and on 14.2.2001 he made a disclosure statement that he has committed theft of gold ornaments and currency notes from the house of the complainant and he has sold some of the gold ornaments to other co-accused namely Ashok Kumar, Ram Rattan, Jai Pal, Sandeep Kumar and Satish Kumar and in pursuance to such disclosure statement, on 15.2.2001, the accused got recovered some of the stolen ornaments from the shop of co-accused Ram Rattan situated at Kalka, which were stated to have been melted by the said co-accused and it were put in a parcel and sealed with seal impression A and same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/A in presence of Prem Chand and Naresh Kumar. The accused also got recovered some of stolen ornaments from the shop of co-accused Jai Pal which were put in a parcel and sealed with seal impression A and was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B, in the presence of Prem Chand and Naresh Kumar and specimen of seal impression used was separately taken on a piece of cloth which Ex.P3 and spot map of recovery of Ex.PW12/B was prepared. The accused thereafter got identified the shop of co-accused Ashok Kumar at Pinjore vide memo Ex.PW8/B, regarding which spot map Ex.PW12/C was prepared in the presence of Abhishek Sharma. The accused also identified the shop of co-accused Sandeep Kumar. On 17.2.2001, the accused identified the shop of co-accused Satish Kumar at Chandigarh and go recovered some of the stolen ornaments which have been melted by the said co-accused and which were seized after putting in a parcel and sealed with seal impression B. On 17.2.2001 accused also identified the shop of co-accused Sandeep Kumar at Pinjore and also got recovered some stolen ornaments from his shop in a melted form which were taken into possession and sealed with seal impression H and said co-accused also produced receipt vide which he has purchased the ornaments from accused Sunder Lal for Rs.18,000/- whereas, co-accused Jai Pal also produced receipt Ex.P9 vide which he has purchased ornaments from accused for Rs.22,000/-. The spot map Ex.PW12/K was also prepared during investigation by Bishamber the then ASI Police Station, Kandaghat, who had died prior to his examination in the Court and statements of the witnesses were recorded by said ASI and Inspector Shamsher Singh as per their versions. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/respondent herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for his committing offences, punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC, whereas, the other accused stood charged hence for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 411 and 201 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, they claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication. 5. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, they claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/respondent herein, for his committing hence offences punishable under Sections 380 and 451 of the IPC, however, it acquitted the other co-accused, for, charges framed under Section 411 and 201 of the IPC. In an appeal preferred therefrom, by the accused/respondent herein, before, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned, the latter reversed the apposite findings of conviction, and, sentence recorded, upon, him, in the judgment, pronounced, by the learned trial Court. 6. The State of H.P., stands aggrieved, by the findings recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned, in dis-concurrence, vis-a-vis, the judgment, of conviction recorded against him, by the learned trial Court. The learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appellant herein, has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned, standing not based on a proper appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by him, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal rather warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any 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. The prosecution would succeed in proving the charge against the accused/respondent, upon, unflinching proof emanating qua, in pursuance, to, the disclosure statement, borne in Ex.PW6/A, hence the purportedly stolen property, by the accused/respondent herein, being recovered, from, the persons/commercial establishments, as, named therein. 9. The prosecution would succeed in proving the charge against the accused/respondent, upon, unflinching proof emanating qua, in pursuance, to, the disclosure statement, borne in Ex.PW6/A, hence the purportedly stolen property, by the accused/respondent herein, being recovered, from, the persons/commercial establishments, as, named therein. In the prosecution proving the aforesaid factum, it had depended, upon, the statement rendered by the Investigating Officer, who, stepped into the witness box, as PW-12, and, tendered into evidence, memo borne in Ex.PW4/A, with, disclosures therein qua the property detailed therein being recovered, from, the shop of co-accused one Ram Rattan, whereto whom, the accused had allegedly sold, two karas of gold weighing 2 tola, and, one gold chain weighing 3 tolas. Ex.PW4/A was prepared in the presence of one Naresh Kumar, and, one Prem Kumar, who appended their respective signatures thereon, as witnesses thereto. A further dependence, is, made upon Ex.P-4, exhibit whereof embodies, a, receipt comprised, in, a sum of Rs.22,000/-, issued by afore Ram Rattan, vis-a-vis, the accused/respondent herein. However, the memo borne in Ex.PW4/A, and, receipt borne, in, Ex.P-4, (i) are not amenable for meteing of any credence thereto, (ii) given PW-4 Naresh Kumar not making any testification, vis-a-vis, in pursuance to Ex.PW6/A, and, through Ex.PW4/A, the items detailed therein, hence, standing recovered, from, co-accused Ram Rattan, and, at the instance of the accused/respondent herein, (iii) also given his reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing. Likewise PW-5 Prem Chand, a witness, to Ex.PW4/A, rendered a testification in his cross-examination, that, Ram Rattan, rather delivering items recovered, through Ex.PW4/A, to the police, at, the Police Station, (iv) wherefrom an inference is bolstered qua his belying the factum, of, recoveries, of, the items, borne in Ex.PW4/A, being effectuated from the premises of one Ram Rattan, and, at the instance of the accused. (v) Both aforesaid, PW-4 and PW-5, omitting to make testifications qua Ram Rattan, at the time of preparation of Ex.PW4/A also handing over receipt, borne in Ex.P-4, with recitals borne therein qua Rs.22,000/-, standing liquidated by him, vis-a-vis, the accused/respondent. Consequently, it is to be concluded, that, Ex.PW4/A, and, the receipt borne in Ex.P-4, remaining unconnected, rather with the disclosure statement, borne in Ex.P6/A. Moreover, with the scribings borne in Ex.P-4, also, remaining not efficaciously proven to be scribed by accused/respondent or by Ram Rattan, thereupon, also no credence is to be meted thereto. 10. Consequently, it is to be concluded, that, Ex.PW4/A, and, the receipt borne in Ex.P-4, remaining unconnected, rather with the disclosure statement, borne in Ex.P6/A. Moreover, with the scribings borne in Ex.P-4, also, remaining not efficaciously proven to be scribed by accused/respondent or by Ram Rattan, thereupon, also no credence is to be meted thereto. 10. Furthermore, the items detailed in Ex.PW4/B, are alleged, to be recovered, thereunder, at the instance of the accused, from, the shop of one Jai Pal at Gandhi Chowk, Kalka, shop whereof stood purportedly identified by the accused. The witnesses thereto are one Naresh Kumar, PW-4, and, one Prem Kumar, PW-5. However, PW-4 apart, from his testifying qua, upon, Ex.PW4/B, his signatures occurring thereon, he has omitted to corroborate, the recitals borne therein qua the items detailed therein, also standing recovered from the premises of one Jai Pal, and, at the instance of the accused. PW-5, contrarily, has deposed that the aforesaid Jai Pal, not in the manner as disclosed in Ex.PW4/B, purveying, the, items detailed therein, to the Investigating Officer concerned, rather his handing over the items detailed therein, to the Police at the Police station. Consequently, PW-4, and, PW-5 also abysmally failed to connect the apt disclosure statement, borne in Ex.PW6/A, and, Ex.PW4/B. Be that as it may, the preparation, of, Ex.P-9 also remains unproven on record, given both PW-4 and PW-5, omitting to make any testification qua the afore receipt, standing issued to accused Sunder Lal, at the time of sale, of, ornaments, to, co-accused Jai Pal. Furthermore, also when the scribings occurring therein are efficaciously not proven to be authored by Jai Pal, hence, no capital can be gained therefrom, by the prosecution. 11. Through Ex.PW8/B five gold rings, weighing 3 tolas, hence stood recovered from the premises co-accused Ashok Kumar, located at Pinjore. However, a closest perusal, of, the testification rendered by PW-8 and of PW-12, omits, to make any underlinings therein qua the recovery of items, detailed therein, being effectuated, in their respective presence, and, at the instance of the accused, and, from, the premises of Ashok Kumar at Pinjore. However, a closest perusal, of, the testification rendered by PW-8 and of PW-12, omits, to make any underlinings therein qua the recovery of items, detailed therein, being effectuated, in their respective presence, and, at the instance of the accused, and, from, the premises of Ashok Kumar at Pinjore. The effect thereof qua, the, mere identification, purportedly, by the accused, of, the aforesaid premises, of Ashok Kumar, located at Pinjore, not, constituting the best evidence, hence, for proving the effectuation(s), of recovery of stolen items, detailed in Ex.PW8/B. Furthermore, through Ex.PW8/A, eight gold rings and silver necklace along with four nose pins, stood purportedly recovered at the instance of the accused, from, the shop of Sandeep Kumar, shop whereof, purportedly stood, identified by the accused/respondent. However, no efficacious proof in respect thereof, stands adduced, (i) given both PW-12 and PW-8 omitting to make any be speakings, in their respectively rendered testifications qua recoveries thereof standing effectuated in their presence, from, the premises of the aforesaid. Even receipt Ex.P-10 purportedly issued, to the accused, at the time of sale of ornaments, to Sandeep Kumar, fails to connect the accused, vis-a-vis, the disclosure statement borne in Ex.PW6/A, (ii) given all the scribings therein not standing proven, to be scribed either by Sandeep Kumar or by the accused/respondent. Even though, the prosecution further placed reliance, upon, memo Ex.PW9/A, and, the receipt borne in Ex.PW9/C, detailing therein, the items recovered thereunder, from the premises of co-accused Satish Kumar, located at Chandigarh, at the purported instance of the accused, yet no reliance is amenable to be placed thereon, as, PW-9 omits to make bespeakings, in consonance, with the recitals borne therein, also, with PW-9/C being not proven to be scribed either by the accused/respondent or by co-accused Satish Kumar. Preeminently, with other co-accused standing acquitted, and, the State not challenging their acquittal also hence constrained this Court, to, uphold the verdict of acquittal. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned, has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Sessions Judge concerned does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.