JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant petitions hence arise, from, the concurrently recorded verdict(s), of, conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence imposed, upon, the petitioner herein (for short accused), initially, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P, upon, case No. 73-1 of 2008, and, subsequently, by the learned first appellate Court, upon, apposite appeal(s) bearing Nos. 70-S/10 of 2008, 71-S/10 of 2008, 72-S/10 of 2008, and, 73-S/10 of 2008, as, stood reared therebefore. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.2.2008, police officials laid a naka on Gumma-Baghi Bifurcation road. At about 4.30 a.m. a truck being driven at hight speed was coming from Baghi road and its driver stopped the afore truck at a distance of 100 meters from the naka point and switched off its lights, and, some persons have come down from the truck. On the basis of suspicion, the police officials went to the spot, and, captured three persons, who disclosed their names to be Bhim Singh, Vishal and Dev Bahadur. While taking advantage of darkness, some persons rant away from the spot. Wallet of the truck driver was found at the place of incident, which carries the photocopy of the Driving licence issued in the name of Muni Lal. Truck was searched, and, upon search 44 scants of deodar and 54 scants of Kail were recovered, which are transported without any valid permit. The truck bearing registration No. HR 38A-0357 alongwith the afore scants of deodar and kail were taken into possession and thereafter given on sapurdari to forest guard, Kumari Vinakshi, and, she marked the scants with hammer mark 1/KK. Thereafter the police commenced the investigation, and, on conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, final report was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. The accused were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offence punishable, under, Section 379 readwith Section 34 of IPC, and, under Section 42 of Indian Forest Act, to, which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein, they pleaded false implication. However, in defence, no witnesses' were examined, by the accused persons. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein, they pleaded false implication. However, in defence, no witnesses' were examined, by the accused persons. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction, against, the accused herein, vis-a-vis, the offences charged. The accused being aggrieved, by the afore judgment of conviction, rendered, by the learned trial Court, hence preferred appeal(s) therefrom, before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. The learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, affirmed the judgment of conviction, as, recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. The learned counsel(s) appearing for the petitioners, have concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned Courts below, standing not based, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled, by gross mis-appreciation, of, material on record. Hence, they contend qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced, by, findings of acquittal. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General, has, with, considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the Court below, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation of 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 witnesses concerned, all of whom, are official witnesses, deposed in unison, and, bereft of any inter-se or intra-se contradiction, vis-a-vis, the validity(ies) of drawing(s) of memo(s), respectively borne in Ex. PW-1/A, and, in Ex. PW-1/B, and, vis-a-vis, preparation of spot map(s) hence respectively, borne in Ex. PW-8/A, Ex. PW-10/B, and, in Ex. PW-10/C. However, the reliance, as, placed by both the learned Court(s) below, upon, the afore purported consistent testimonies, vis-a-vis, the genesis of the prosecution case, embodied in FIR borne in Ex. PW-6/A, and, also the further reliance placed, by both the Court(s) below, vis-a-vis, the validity(ies), of, drawing(s) of the afore memo(s), is, yet rendered legally frail, and, enfeebled, for, the reasons ascribed hereinafter. 10. PW-6/A, and, also the further reliance placed, by both the Court(s) below, vis-a-vis, the validity(ies), of, drawing(s) of the afore memo(s), is, yet rendered legally frail, and, enfeebled, for, the reasons ascribed hereinafter. 10. Pw-1 Constable Nank Chand, testifies qua, during the course of a Naka, held on the spot, enunciated in Ex. PW-10/C, the police arresting the accused Bhim Singh, Vishal, and, Dev Bahdaur. He proceeded to identify, in Court co-accused Muni Lal, to be the person, who was driving the relevant vehicle, at the relevant time, and, the afore identification, as testified by PW-1, during, the course of his examination in chief, is, echoed therefrom, to, occur from his sighting co-accused Muni Lal, at the stage of his attempting, to flee from the truck, (i) and, his hence thereat dropping his purse Ex. P-1, (ii) and, also is testified, to spur, rather from the photocopy, of driving licence embodied, in Ex. P-3. However, the identification of accused Muni Lal, in Court, by PW-1, is rendered grossly inefficacious, and, is not amenable, for, any sustenance, being therefrom drawn rather by the prosecution, (iii) as, PW-1 testifies qua Ex. P-1, being easily available in the market, and, apparently with no apposite identification marks appertaining to the identity of co-accused Muni Lal, rather, being contained/enclosed therein, in as much as, it, not hence evidently enclosing the Adhaar Card, or, the bank passbook, of, the afore accused, (iv) and, with Ex. P-3 being the photocopy of the original, of, the Driving Licence, (v) and, with no proof qua its veracity being adduced, from the original thereof, (vi) besides with the owner of the vehicle, not stepping into the witness box, for, his deposing qua his engaging accused Muni Lal, as, a driver, upon, his vehicle, (vii) and, with the log book of the vehicle concerned, not being seized, with, disclosure occurring therein, vis-a-vis, accused Muni Lal, being the driver engaged, upon, the vehicle concerned, (viii) thereupon, obviously renders the identification in Court, of, co-accused Muni Lal by PW-1, to be holding no legal efficacy, moreso, when preceding therewith, no valid test identification parade, stood, conducted, by the Investigating Officer concerned. 11. 11. Apart from the above, and, for the further reasons assigned by this Court, for, making hence an order of acquittal, upon, the revisionists, by, reversing the concurrently recorded verdict(s), of, conviction against the accused/revisionists herein, (i) the preeminent reason hence swaying this Court, to, reverse, hence, the concurrently recorded verdict(s) of conviction, vis-a-vis, the accused/revisionists herein, and, reasons whereof, rather also, hold sway, vis-a-vis, accused Muni Lal, are, embodied in (a) with PW-1 in his deposition, comprised in his cross-examination, rendering echoings, vis-a-vis, the truck being driven up to, the range office concerned, and, his also meteing articulations qua his soliciting the services, of, a driver from the truck union concerned, rather, for the vehicle being driven thereupto (b) thereupon, when the name of the driver, remains undivulged by PW-1, (c) whereupon the afore reticence, vis-a-vis, the name of the afore driver, whose services, hence, were solicited, by the police authorities, to, drive the vehicle, up to, the range office concerned, hence sparks a suspicion, vis-a-vis, rather the police personnel obviously proceeding to drive the vehicle concerned, from the site of occurrence, up to, the range office concerned, (d) and, the further concomitant sequel thereof, is that the afore driving, of, the vehicle, galvanizing an inference, from this Court, qua its seizure not occurring, at the site of occurrence, embodied in Ex. PW-10/B, rather it occurring elsewhere. Moreso, when the entire proceedings, stood drawn thereat, and, the factum qua hence an unnamed person, driving the relevant vehicle, from, the site of occurrence, up to the range office concerned, all when stand(s) conjoined, (e) with the further factum qua the prosecution witnesses, concerned, in their respective depositions, as, comprised in their cross-examinations, hence making unequivocal voicings, vis-a-vis, the availability, of, a bazaar, in, proximity to the site of occurrence, (f) and, when hence independent witnesses were available, to be joined, in the relevant proceedings, and, with no tenable explanation, standing purveyed, by the prosecution, for, omission to join them in the investigation, or, in the relevant proceedings, therethrough(s) rather a firm inference being generated, from, this Court, that, the prosecution hence abysmally failing, to establish, that, accused Muni Lal, was the driver of the vehicle concerned, and, also the other accused, were aboard the vehicle, or, were in proximity, to the vehicle concerned, and, that they were arrested, at the site of occurrence. 12. 12. Pw-2 kashmeer Singh, in his deposition, comprised in his cross-examination, has disclosed that, for, unloading the timber carried, in the truck, the services of forest staff, namely Rajesh Sharma, Ashok (Chowkidar) and Chet Ram, being too solicited, and, also the services of nepali laborers, being solicited. However, the citing of the afore Rajesh, Chet Ram, and, Ashok Kumar, as prosecution witnesses, hence was a dire necessity, for, benumbing the defence espousal, (i) qua with the accused, apart from accused Muni Lal, being of Nepali origin, and, that rather an abandoned truck, carrying the illicit timber stood seized, hence at the relevant site, (ii) besides for also benumbing the defence espousal, qua theirs being only deployed to unload the timber carried, in the truck concerned, (iii) conspicuously, and preeminently, for, therethrough(s), hence benumbing any germination, of any suspicion qua the afore being not validly arrested, at the relevant site. However, for want of the afore being Cited as PWs, and, also obviously for want of their stepping, into the witnesses box, rather enhances the afore defence espousal, and, when the afore factum probandem, of, non-joining, at the site of occurrence, of independent witness, despite, their availability thereat, hence stands entwined therewith, and, also with another prime factum, vis-a-vis, the reticence, of, the prosecution, vis-a-vis, the name, of, the driver, who, drove the vehicle, upto, the Range Office concerned, (iv) hence galvanizes an inference, vis-a-vis, the prosecution concocting, the site of occurrence, embodied in the site plan(s), (v) and, rather the site of occurrence being elsewhere, (vi) and, therefrom a further inevitable conclusion, being begotten, qua the prosecution rather abysmally failing to nail, the, charge against the accused. 13. Both the Court(s) below, depended mainly, upon the drawing, of, memo(s) respectively, borne in Ex. PW-4/D, in Ex. PW-4/E, and, in Ex. 13. Both the Court(s) below, depended mainly, upon the drawing, of, memo(s) respectively, borne in Ex. PW-4/D, in Ex. PW-4/E, and, in Ex. PW-9/B, (i) given the afore memos respectively carrying thereon, the signatures, of accused Munni Lal, Devinder Kumar and Vishal, (ii) thereupon, it stood concluded qua the prosecution sustaining the charge, (iii) however, any dependence upon the memo(s) aforesaid, is, a gross mis-dependence, given the recovery of the illicit timber carried in the vehicle concerned, standing already or prior thereto hence being effectuated, (iv) thereupon there was no enjoined necessity, upon, the Investigation Officer concerned, to, rather proceed to draw, at, the instance of the accused concerned, the afore memo(s), (v) unless, the site wherefrom the illicit timber was stolen, and, thereafter stood loaded, on to, the truck, concerned, was proven to be located, at a remote inaccessible place, and, it being only known, to the accused concerned, (v) however when the afore evidence, is grossly amiss, and, when the site, wherefrom, the allegedly stolen timber, was, loaded onto the vehicle, rather occurred at, an accessible place, and, when hence the Investigating Officer, also evidently with knowledge thereof hence could lead thereupto the co-accused concerned, and, ensure theirs making, their, signatures thereon, (vi) obviously, would not render, it to, constitute a probative piece of, evidence against the accused, emphasisingly, when/with the afore gross, and, pervasive infirmities rather gripping the prosecution case, hence remaining unbenumbed. 14. Lastly, the prosecution was enjoined to prove that sample slippers Ex. P-1 and P-2, though, carrying thereon, the, requisite hammer marks, being also drawn, from, the bulk from timber, carried in the truck concerned. The exhibits, as aforestated though carries thereon, the requisite hammer marks, but, as voiced in cross-examination of PW-2, qua the FIR number, being not embossed thereon, and, when the marking of the FIR number, upon, the afore exhibits was imperative, and, when hence the apt connectivity, inter-se, the afore exhibits, vis-a-vis, the timber carried, in the truck concerned, would rather conspicuously hence emerge, (i) whereas, with lack of mark of FIR number, upon Ex. P-1, and, upon P-2, there is, an, apparent lack of connectivity, inter-se, the afore exhibits, vis-a-vis, the timber carried/seized, and, also thereupon, the, entire prosecution case hence stands jettisoned. 15. P-1, and, upon P-2, there is, an, apparent lack of connectivity, inter-se, the afore exhibits, vis-a-vis, the timber carried/seized, and, also thereupon, the, entire prosecution case hence stands jettisoned. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petitions are allowed and the impugned judgment(s) of conviction and sentence, rendered by the learned trial Courts below are unsustainable, and, as such are set aside. The accused stand acquitted, and, the fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to them. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are cancelled and discharged. Send down the records.