ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant on all the charges. During the pendency of the trial co-accused Hiro Devi died. The State preferred an appeal before the High Court against the acquittal of the present appellant. The High Court allowed the appeal and after recording conviction of the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 awarded sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2 lacs. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The prosecution story in short is that the police party on a random patrol found two ladies with their child on their back walking at some distance. The lady in front was carrying a pink coloured bag. On seeing the police party, the lady ahead threw the bag to the lady behind and ran. However, the police party managed to apprehend both the ladies. When the bag was opened some black coloured substance was found. The said substance was identified to be Charas weighing 1.4 Kg. Before the Trial Court, PW-4 and PW-5 are the police officials, who are said to have been present at the place of recovery and arrest. Further it is also the case of the prosecution that one lady Constable was called at the time of search etc. However, she has not been produced as a prosecution witness. No independent witness was also introduced at the time of recovery. PW-4 and PW-5 have specifically stated in their testimony that the lady ahead was carrying the pink coloured bag and on seeing the police she threw the same at the lady behind. Their testimony also identifies the lady ahead as Hiro Devi and the lady walking behind as the present appellant Dassi Devi. 4. The Trial Court, after considering all the material evidence on record and in particular the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 and also for other reasons, recorded acquittal. On perusal of the judgment of the High Court, we are unable to accept the reasoning given by the High Court in relying upon the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5, to record conviction against the appellant as admittedly both PW-4 and PW-5, who were present on the spot, have stated that the lady walking ahead was Hiro Devi, who was carrying the bag. No further connection has been proved by the prosecution between the two ladies except that on seeing the police both the ladies tried to run. On such reasoning given by the High Court, we are not convinced that it could result into conviction. The prosecution story, as set up, does not inspire confidence so as to record conviction against the appellant. The other lady walking ahead having died, the conviction against the appellant is unwarranted. 5. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant. The appellant is already on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.