JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.03.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge(Forest) Shimla, in criminal Appeal No.4-S/10 of 08/03, reversing the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No.80-1 of 2002, whereby learned trial Court held respondents/accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 148, 452, 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC) and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as under:- Sr. No. Section Imprisonment 1. 452 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. 148 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 3. 323 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 4. To further sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- each. 2. Brief facts as emerge from the record are that on 22nd August, 2002 complainant Smt. Kewla Devi (PW1) alongwith her son Sh. Sant Ram (PW2) visited Police Station, Chopal and alleged that on 22.08.2002 when she alongwith her son namely Sant Ram was sleeping in her house at village Sheila Badlawag, Pargana Jakholi, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., at about 2:00 A.M, respondents/accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), forcibly entered into her house and then accused Kirpa Ram, who is respondent No.1, made an attempt to outrage her modesty by breaking the string of her Salwar. She further stated before the Police that when her son Sant Ram tried to rescue her, he was also given beatings by the accused persons with stick, kick and fist blows. Subsequently, accused dragged the complainant Smt. Kewla Devi and her Sant Ram out of their room and again gave them beatings. As per complainant, Sant Ram (PW-2) started crying due to pain inflicted upon him by accused Kirpa Ram, as a result of which, person namely Kirpa Ram (PW-3), reached at the spot and thereafter, Sant Ram was taken to the room of his brother namely Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW4). Complainant further alleged that all the accused while leaving the spot of incident, threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal F.I.R. Ex.PW8/A came to be registered against accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 354, 323 and 506 of IPC. Ramesh Chand (PW4). Complainant further alleged that all the accused while leaving the spot of incident, threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal F.I.R. Ex.PW8/A came to be registered against accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 354, 323 and 506 of IPC. Police got complainant as well as her son medically examined at CHC, Chopal and obtained their MLCs Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. PW8, ASI Prithi Singh, conducted the investigation in the case, who after visiting the spot on 24th August, 2002, arrested the accused persons. However, fact remains that accused persons were subsequently released on bail by the court below. Police after completion of the investigation presented the challan in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. 3. The learned trial Court being satisfied that a primafacie case exist against the accused/respondents, framed charge against them for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 354, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, fact remains that learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced/collected on record by the prosecution held respondents/accused namely Kirpa Ram, Atma Ram, Het Ram, Baby Chand and Keshao Ram guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC, however, they were acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 354, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Learned trial Court also acquitted the accused persons namely Shyam Lal and Roop Lal by extending them benefit of doubt. Vide aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded against respondents/accused, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced them, as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Respondents/accused being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, preferred an appeal under Section 374 (3) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, (Forest) Shimla, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.4-S/10 of 08/03. Learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla vide impugned judgment dated 31.03.2008, accepted the appeal having been preferred by respondents/accused and accordingly acquitted them after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Trial Court. Learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla vide impugned judgment dated 31.03.2008, accepted the appeal having been preferred by respondents/accused and accordingly acquitted them after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Trial Court. In the aforesaid background, present appellant-State, has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of the respondents-accused after setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P. 5. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this court to the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forest) Shimla, vehemently argued that same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon the proper/correct appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, further contended that bare perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal, itself suggest that evidence led on record by the prosecution has not been read in its right perspective, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, which is based upon the proper evidence of the evidence came to be set-aside. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Negi, made this court to peruse the evidence led on record by the prosecution, to demonstrate that prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 22.8.2002 respondents/accused forcibly entered into the house of complainant and thereafter they gave beatings to the complainant as well as her son. While referring to the statement of PW-1, Smt. Kewla Devi, Mr. Negi, contended that she categorically stated before the court below that accused Kirpa Ram made an attempt to outrage her modesty by breaking string of her salwar. Mr. Negi, further contended that apart from her i.e. complainant, her son PW-2, Sant Ram corroborated the version of complainant and as such, there was no occasion for the learned first appellate court to set-aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court, especially when the version put forth by PW-1 and PW-2, is corroborated by independent witnesses PW-3 and PW-4. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Advocate General, prayed that present appeal may be accepted and the respondents/accused may be convicted of the charges framed against them after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla. 6. Ms. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Advocate General, prayed that present appeal may be accepted and the respondents/accused may be convicted of the charges framed against them after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla. 6. Ms. Kiran Lata, learned legal Aid Counsel, representing the respondents/accused, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla. While refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. Lata, strenuously argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge( Forest), Shimla, rather perusal of the same, suggest that learned first appellate Court while setting-aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court, has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is no scope of interference of this court in the instant proceedings. 7. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 8. Since, during the proceedings of the instant case, this court had an occasion to peruse the entire evidence led on record by the prosecution vis-à-vis impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned first appellate Court, this Court sees no force in the argument of learned Additional Advocate General that there is total misreading, mis-appreciation and misconstruction of evidence led on record by the prosecution, by the learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla while setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. This Court, after having carefully perused the entire evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, has no hesitation to conclude that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla as he has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there appears to be no scope of interference as far as this court is concerned. It clearly emerge from the perusal of evidence available on record that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts that respondents/accused forcibly entered into the house of complainant and thereafter gave beatings to them. Record further reveals that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident save and except PW-1 and PW-2, who happened to be mother and son. Record further reveals that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident save and except PW-1 and PW-2, who happened to be mother and son. In the instant case PW-1, Smt. Kewla Devi, while supporting the case of the prosecution deposed before the court below that accused entered into her room and started giving beatings to her. She further stated before the court below that all the accused started giving beating to her son and thereafter they left the room threatening them with dire consequences. Complainant while lodging report with the police, which was ultimately converted into the FIR, stated that respondent/accused Kirpa Ram made an attempt to outrage her modesty by breaking string of her salwar. But interestingly, there is no mention, if any, of the aforesaid allegation in the deposition made before the court below. In her examination-in-chief, complainant stated that all the accused including Shyam Singh and Roop Lal entered into her room and thereafter they gave beatings to her as well as her son. 9. Version put forth by PW-2, Sh. Sant Ram, is also at variance with the statement/version put forth by PW-1. As per PW-2, respondent/accused Kirpa Ram entered into their room, whereas Keshao Ram and Baby Chand respondent No.3 remained outside the room. This witness stated before the court below that respondent/accused Kirpa Ram tried to outrage modesty of her mother and when he intervened, he was given beating by Kirpa Ram. But as has been noticed above, PW-1, Smt. Kewla Devi in her statement has stated that nothing with regard to attempt, if any, made by Kirpa Ram to outrage her modesty. Similarly, there is no mention, if any, in the statement of PW-1 with regard to her being rescued by PW-2, Sant Ram. It has also come in his statement that he alongwith her mother was thereafter taken outside of their house, where other accused Nareshu, Shamu, Aatma Ram and Het Ram were present. He further stated that when they intended to beat him, accused Roopu rescued him and told them that no beating should be given to him. Aforesaid version put forth by PW-2 in his examination-in-chief is totally contradictory to the admission made by him in his cross-examination. He further stated that when they intended to beat him, accused Roopu rescued him and told them that no beating should be given to him. Aforesaid version put forth by PW-2 in his examination-in-chief is totally contradictory to the admission made by him in his cross-examination. In cross-examination, he specifically admitted that names of accused Roop Lal and Shyam Lal were not mentioned in the FIR and no beatings were given to him by Roop Lal and Shyam Lal. In his cross-examination, he further stated that in his examination-in-chief he wrongly stated that accused Shamu also gave him beating. Most importantly, this witness in his cross-examination admitted that no wrong was done with his mother in his presence. 10. Conjoint reading of aforesaid statements having been made by PW-1 and PW-2, certainly compels this court to agree with the contention having been made by Ms. Kiran Lata, learned Legal Aid counsel, that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the version of these witnesses for material contradictions. Judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, itself suggests that even it had noticed aforesaid contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, but those were not taken into consideration on the ground that they may not be very material as far as narration of sequence given by complainant ( PW-1) and her son (PW-2) is concerned. True, it is contradiction, if any, in the statements of prosecution witnesses can be ignored, if minor, but certainly contradictions, which are major in nature could not be ignored by court below while ascertaining the correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution witnesses. In the case at hand, as has been noticed above, there are material contradictions in the statements of PW- 1 and PW-2, who could be termed as spot witnesses to the alleged incident. Apart from above, perusal of FIR Ex.PW8/A, itself suggests that complainant took all together different stand before the court below because in the FIR, she categorically alleged against the respondents/accused that they had made an attempt to outrage her modesty, whereas no statement, if any, to that effect is made before the court below. PW-3, Kirpa Ram, so called independent witness, associated by the prosecution to prove its case, also not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. PW-3, Kirpa Ram, so called independent witness, associated by the prosecution to prove its case, also not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. As per PW-3, Kirpa Ram, he after having heard cries of PW-2, Sant Ram, came at the spot of occurrence. He further deposed that he saw Sant Ram (PW-2) lying outside his house in injured condition. He further deposed that Sant Ram (PW-2) requested him to call his brother. Statement of aforesaid witness is also contrary to the stand taken by him before the police i.e. statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein he categorically stated that he saw the accused persons running from the spot. 12. PW-4, Ramesh Chand also resiled from his earlier statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C, however he supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that he was called by PW-3, Kirpa Ram at the spot. Interestingly, this witness further stated that when he alongwith his brother went on the spot, he found that Sant Ram was crying and saying that he be saved. If the statements of aforesaid witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 are read in its entirety, they have not supported the case of the prosecution, rather they resiled from their earlier statement given to the police, wherein they had stated that they saw the accused running from the spot. It has nowhere come in the statements of aforesaid prosecution witnesses that when they reached the spot of occurrence, PW-2 disclosed them that he has been given beatings by respondents/accused, rather as per their version PW-2 was saying that he be saved. 13. After having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the evidence led on record by the prosecution, I see no illegality and infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Sessions judge (Forest), Shimla that statements of PW-1 and PW-2 does not inspire confidence. Similarly as has been discussed herein above, so called independent witnesses Kirpa Ram and Ramesh Chand have also not supported the case of the prosecution and as such, this court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence that on 22.8.2002 respondents/accused forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and thereafter made an attempt to outrage her modesty and also gave beatings. 14. 14. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and needs to be evaluated for its creditability. Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the well established principle that “no man is guilty until proved so”, utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on touchstone of consistency. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC 645 , wherein it has been held as under:- “45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686 : 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) “14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy;.. the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.” 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that “no man is guilty until proven so,” hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in evidence amongst all the witnesses. 15. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in evidence amongst all the witnesses. 15. After perusing the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well exhibits placed on record, two views are possible in the present case and as such, the petitioner-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in State of UP versus Ghambhir Singh & others, AIR 2005 SC 2439 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if on the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- “6. So far as Hori Lal, PW-1 is concerned, he had been sent to fetch a basket from the village and it was only a matter of coincidence that while he was returning he witnessed the entire incident. The High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his testimony because he evidence clearly shows that he had an animus against the appellants. Moreover, his evidence was not corroborated by objective circumstances. Though it was his categorical case that all of them fired, no injury caused by rifle was found, and, only two wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Apart from this PW-3 did not mention the presence of either PW-1 or PW-2 at the time of occurrence. All these circumstances do create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The presence of these three witnesses becomes doubtful if their evidence is critically scrutinized. May be it is also possible to take a view in favour of the prosecution, but since the High Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a finding in favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred.” 16. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment reported in Pawan Kumar and Kamal Bhardwaj versus State of H.P., latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1150 has also concluded here-in-below:- “25. It is well settled that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred.” 16. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment reported in Pawan Kumar and Kamal Bhardwaj versus State of H.P., latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1150 has also concluded here-in-below:- “25. Moreover, when the occurrence is admitted but there are two different versions of the incident, one put forth by the prosecution and the other by the defence and one of the two version is proved to be false, the second can safely be believed, unless the same is unnatural or inherently untrue. 26. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the manner of occurrence, as pleaded by the defence, is not true. The manner of the occurrence testified by PW-11 Sandeep Rana is not unnatural nor is it intrinsically untrue, therefore, it has to be believed. 27. Sandeep Rana could not be said to have been established, even if the prosecution version were taken on its face value. It was pleaded that no serious injury had been caused to PW-11 Sandeep Rana and that all the injuries, according to the testimony of PW-21 Dr. Raj Kumar, which he noticed on the person of Sandeep Rana, at the time of his medical examination, were simple in nature.” 17. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, which otherwise appears to be based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.