JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 05.02.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 9-II/2007 whereby private complaint under Section 156(3) filed on behalf of the appellant-complainant, came to be dismissed, as a result of which respondents-accused were acquitted of charges under Sections 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) preferred a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. PC in the Court of learned JMIC, Indora, District Kangra, HP, which came to be registered as criminal case No. 9-II/2007, alleging therein that on 7.7.2003 accused persons carrying sticks in their hands forcibly entered the land possessed by the complainant comprised in Khasra No. 293 situate in village Gangwal Behri. As per complainant, he was in possession over the suit land, which had fallen to his share during partition. He further alleged that he had sown ‘Til’ and ‘Mash’ crop over the land. He further stated that appeal against the partition order is still pending in the competent Court of law. As per complainant, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to kill the complainant and his wife, forcibly entered the suit land and started causing damage to the crop sown by the complainant, ploughed the land forcibly and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1500/-. The complainant further alleged that when he tired to prevent/stop the accused from their act, they abused and gave beatings to him and his wife. The complainant further alleged that accused while leaving site of occurrence threatened them with dire consequences and also assaulted and gave beatings to him. The complainant further alleged that his wife, who made an attempt to rescue him was also given beatings by the accused persons, as a result of which he alongwith his wife sustained injuries. Though, the matter was reported to the police at Police Station, Indora and the complainant and his wife were got medically examined, but no action was taken by the police and as such he was compelled to lodge a private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. 3. Though, the matter was reported to the police at Police Station, Indora and the complainant and his wife were got medically examined, but no action was taken by the police and as such he was compelled to lodge a private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. 3. Complainant with a view to prove his complaint examined as many as four witnesses, whereas, accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C denied the case of the complainant in toto. Accused persons in their defence also tendered documents Ext. D1 to Ext. D-4. 4. Learned Trial Court being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, framed charges against them for commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The learned JMIC, vide judgment dated 5.2.2009 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant, as a result of which, respondents/accused came to be acquitted of charges framed against them under Sections 447, 323 of the IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of acquittal recorded by learned JMIC, the complainant approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned JMIC. Learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently contended that the impugned judgment recorded by the Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence and as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel representing complainant strenuously argued that bare perusal of impugned judgment suggests that evidence led on record was not read and appreciated in right perspective as a result of which erroneous findings have come on record. While substantiating his aforesaid arguments Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, made this Court to travel through evidence led on record by the complainant to demonstrate that it was successfully proved on record that on 7.7.2003, accused persons, who were armed with sticks in their hands forcibly entered into the land owned and possessed by the complainant and thereafter gave beatings to complainant as well as his wife. While concluding his arguments, Mr. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate contended that Court below misread, misconstrued and mis- appreciated evidence collected on record by the prosecution and as such respondents/accused be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below. 7. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel representing respondents-accused supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and stated that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same and the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Learned counsel representing respondents/accused with a view to substantiate his arguments invited the attention of this Court to the documentary evidence tendered on behalf of the respondents in the shape of Ext. D1 to D4 to demonstrate that land on which respondents-accused allegedly trespassed had fallen in the share of the respondents/accused and not in the share of the complainant. Learned counsel for respondents further contended that none of the complainant witnesses supported the version put forth by CW-1 i.e. complainant that he as well as his wife were given beatings by the respondents-accused and as such learned Court below rightly held them not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 447 and 323 of IPC. While concluding his arguments, learned counsel representing respondents-accused contended that except CW-1 and CW-2, who happened to be husband and wife, none of prosecution witnesses stated that they saw respondents-accused giving beatings to the complainant as well as his wife and as such, judgment of acquittal being based upon correct appreciation of evidence deserves to be upheld. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the records. 9. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the records. 9. This Court solely with a view to ascertain the correctness of submissions having been made by learned counsel representing complainant that there is misreading, misinterpretation and misconstruction of evidence, carefully perused the evidence led on record by the respective parties vis-à-vis impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below, perusal whereof certainly does not persuade to this Court to agree with the aforesaid contention of learned counsel representing complainant, rather this Court after having carefully analyzed the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, has no hesitation to conclude that complainant was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 7.7.2003 respondents-accused forcibly entered into the land owned and possessed by him and thereafter he and his wife were given beatings and as such, there appears no illegality and infirmity in the findings returned by the Court below. 10. Complainant Atar Singh, while appearing as CW-1 reiterated the contents of the complainant and stated that on 7.7.2003, accused persons carrying sticks in their hands entered Khasra No. 293/128 possessed and owned by him and started uprooting the ‘til’ and ‘mash’ crop sown by him. He further stated that when he tried to prevent them, respondent/accused namely Saroop Singh gave a stick blow on his head, whereas the other accused also started beating him. He further stated that his wife, who was coming to their fields, tried to rescue him, but the accused also gave beatings to her. He also stated that he suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1500/- and the accused while leaving the spot of incident threatened them with dire consequences. In his cross-examination, he admitted Ext. A-1 copy of the complaint made to the police, wherein he had specifically stated that he was given beatings by Jyoti Devi and Shakuntala Devi. Though, he denied that land in Khasra No. 293/128 was not partitioned, but he categorically admitted that stay order was passed against him regarding the said land. 11. CW-2 Salochan Devi, who happened to be the wife of complainant also stated that on 7.7.2003, at about 7.30 a.m. at Gangwal when she was in her house, she heard noises from the fields and on reaching the spot, she saw the accused armed with sticks giving beating to the complainant. 11. CW-2 Salochan Devi, who happened to be the wife of complainant also stated that on 7.7.2003, at about 7.30 a.m. at Gangwal when she was in her house, she heard noises from the fields and on reaching the spot, she saw the accused armed with sticks giving beating to the complainant. She further stated that when she tried to rescue the complainant, accused persons also gave beatings to her. She also stated that accused uprooted the crop and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1500/-. She further stated that the land, where the incident occurred had fallen into the share of the complainant in the partition proceedings. In her cross-examination, CW-2 admitted that only Soma Devi witnessed the incident from a distance and Chain Singh, CW-3 came later. 12. Conjoint reading of aforesaid statements having been made by CW-1 and CW-2, who are husband and wife, clearly suggests that there are/were material contradictions in the statements with regard to presence of CW-2 Salochna Devi on the site of occurrence. As per CW-1 when he was being given beating by respondent accused, CW-2 Salochana Devi was coming to the field, whereas CW-2 categorically stated that on 7.7.2003, at about 7.30, she was in the house when she heard noises from the fields and on reaching the spot she saw the accused armed with sticks giving beatings to CW-1. Similarly, CW-2 in her statement stated that incident was witnessed by Soma Devi, but unfortunately there appears to be no attempt on the part of prosecution to cite Soma Devi as a spot witness to lend support to the story put forth by the complainant. 13. CW-3, Chain Singh stated that he does not remember the date. He further stated that in July, 2003, he was working in his fields, when he heard noises, but when he reached there, nothing happened in his presence and the complainant had suffered injuries on his head. He feigned ignorance with regard to the incident. Though, this witness admitted that when he reached spot of occurrence, complainant had suffered injuries, but he specifically stated that nothing happened in his presence. 14. CW-4 Dr. Randhir Thakur stated that complainant as well as her wife suffered injuries, but in cross-examination, he admitted that injuries could be caused by fall at a hard surface. 15. Though, this witness admitted that when he reached spot of occurrence, complainant had suffered injuries, but he specifically stated that nothing happened in his presence. 14. CW-4 Dr. Randhir Thakur stated that complainant as well as her wife suffered injuries, but in cross-examination, he admitted that injuries could be caused by fall at a hard surface. 15. In the case at hand, there is only one so called independent witness CW-3 Chain Singh, who did not support the case of the complainant as has been discussed hereinabove, CW-3 though admitted that complainant had suffered injuries, but categorically stated before Court below that nothing happened in his presence and feigned his ignorance with regard to the alleged incident. Similarly, though medical evidence adduced on record suggests that complainant and his wife had suffered injuries but that may not be sufficient to conclude that injuries as mentioned in Ext. PW4/A and Ext. PW4/B were inflicted by respondents/accused because none of the independent witnesses supported the version put forth by the complainant CW-1 and his wife CW-2. 16. True it is, that version put forth by interested witnesses can not be brushed aside on account of non association of independent witnesses, rather version put forth by interested witnesses can also be considered by the Court while ascertaining the correctness of case put forth by prosecution/complainant. But in the instant case, as has been noticed above Soma Devi witnessed the incident as stated by CW-2, but she was not cited as complainant’s witness, whereas another so called independent witness CW-3 Chain Singh nowhere supported the case of the prosecution. Since respondent-accused successfully proved on record by placing document Ext. D1, i.e. order passed by Collector, Nurpur dated 2.8.2004, that partition order was set aside, wherein land in question had fallen to the share of complainant, version put forth by the complainant and his wife that respondents-accused forcefully entered and trespassed into the land owned and possessed by the complainant was rightly not accepted by the Court below. It appears that after partition land had fallen into the share of the complainant and respondent-accused being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, preferred an appeal which is/was pending before competent authority. It appears that after partition land had fallen into the share of the complainant and respondent-accused being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, preferred an appeal which is/was pending before competent authority. Though, it emerged from record that at first instance complainant had lodged complaint with police at police station Indora and thereafter one of Head Constable namely Desh Raj had taken the complainant and his wife to Dr. Randhir, Medical Officer, Indora, who also proved MLCs Ext. PW4/A and Ext. PW4/B, but interestingly, there appears to be no attempt on the part of complainant to associate aforesaid Head Constable as a witness to prove that immediately after alleged incident, matter was reported to the police and police got the complainant and his wife medically examined from Doctor Randhir Thakur, CW-4. 17. Leaving everything aside, as has been taken note above, there are material contradictions in the statements of CW-1 and CW-2 with regard to presence of CW-2 on the spot of occurrence and as such learned Court below rightly not placed any reliance upon statement made by CW-2. 18. 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 Supreme Court Cases 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. 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. 19. Consequently, in view of above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 9-II/2007, as such, the same is upheld and present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.