The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to provide cogent and reliable evidence may result in acquittal.

SURINDER SINGH, J :

The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, for which they were tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.8/2 of 1995, decided on 30th October, 2000. The said acquittal of the respondents has been challenged in the present appeal by the State.

2. The allegations on which the respondents were put on trial can be stated thus. On 24th and 25th November, 1994, there were incidents of theft in Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? District Solan. On 25th November, 1994, PW6 Arbind Kumar, the then Manager of the UCO Bank Deothi branch noticed that the lock of the main gate of the Bank was broken. He immediately informed telephonically, Police Post Saproon, District Solan. PW16 Anant Ram, Incharge of the aforesaid Police Post visited the spot on the basis of complaint Ex.PW6/A made by Shri Arvind aforesaid. A formal FIR Ex.PW16/A was registered in Police Station Solan.

3. During investigation, PW8 Hoshiar Singh and one Shyam Lal disclosed that during intervening night of 24th/ 25th November, 1994, some thefts were also committed from their barber and confectionary shops respectively. Even PW14 Smt. Aruna Sharma, Headmistress of Government Middle School, Hatti and PW13 Jagmohan, Headmaster of the Primary School Hatti also brought to the notice that some thefts have been committed in their respective Schools also.

4. On 25th November, 1994, the respondents were found travelling in HRTC Bus at Ramshehar. They were apprehended on suspicion by the police of Police Station Ramshehar, later arrested in FIR No.81/94 under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan. The amount alleged to have been stolen in the present case alongwith some other articles was recovered from their possession vide memos Exts.PW9/A, PW4/A and PW4/B. Further, Scissors Exts.P1 to P3 were also got recovered, which were identified by PW8 Hoshiar Singh aforesaid having been stolen from his shop. Respondent Babu Ram made his statement Ex.PW9/B having disclosed about the theft committed by him and pursuant to that, the articles mentioned in the list Ex.PW9/A were also got recovered, which were later on handed over to the Police Station Sadar, Solan. The relevant documents and articles, which were involved in the present theft of Solan were taken into possession by the local police and the challan was presented against the respondents in the Court for the offences aforesaid.

5. The respondents were accordingly charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations which were found attendant upon each of them were denied by them. In defence, no evidence was led.

7. Learned trial court considered the matter whether the respondents had committed lurking house tress pass by entering into the premises of UCO Bank, Deothi and committed theft of one Cheque Book of the Bank, one Draft, 19 ticket of 75 paise, 20 ticket of 25 paise, one scissor make ‘Hello’, two Scissors make ‘Nazco’ one Cheque book of state Bank of India, currency notes of `475/- and the coins of 70.66 paise belonging to the UCO Bank, Deothi and also the commission of offence of theft of the Scissors from Barber shop of Hoshiar Singh. On examining the matter on the strength of the evidence placed on record , the learned trial Court noticed discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and also that the recovery memos were not in conformity with the alleged statements of recovery, thus, disbelieved the evidence led by the prosecution, consequently, acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt.

8. We have re-examined the evidence on record. There is absolutely no direct or the circumstantial evidence on record wi