JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant appeal by the State has been filed against judgment dated 27.6.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Case No. 41/2 of 2003, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) has been acquitted of charges framed against him for the commission of offences punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 323 IPC and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act. 2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 2.3.2003, at about 11 am, complainant namely Jai Parkash alongwith other persons namely Sohan Singh, Ved Parkash (PW-3), Jai Gopal, Bheem Singh (PW-6), Babble Singh, Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Krishana Devi was cutting and lopping the branches of the tree in Bani forest, Village Bohal, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Rajgarh. Accused alongwith his wife Sunehro Devi came on the spot and advised said persons not to cut and lop the branches of the tree on the spot. On confrontation, accused allegedly caused simple hurt to the complainant Jai Parkash by striking the country made pistol (Katta). Accused was found in possession of one country made pistol alongwith live cartridge without any licence. Accused was apprehended by aforesaid persons and taken to Village Bohal. Police was informed on telephone by Sohan Dutt, Pradhan, whereafter rapat Ext. PW-11/A was lodged. Police visited the spot and statement of complainant Jai Parkash under Section 154 CrPC was recorded vide Ext. PW-4/A, on the basis of which, FIR under Section 307 IPC Ext. PW-15/A was registered at Police Station, Rajgarh. Police started investigation and during investigation, police after having prepared site plan of the spot of occurrence, Ext. PW- 15/B, also took into possession country made pistol/ Katta (Ext. P1), live cartridge Ext. P2, vide memo Ext. PW-3/B, in the presence of Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3), which was produced by PW Bheem Singh (PW-6) as Bheem Singh (PW-6) had snatched the said country made pistol on the spot from accused Sohan Dass. House of accused was also raided by the police and after search, accused was also found in exclusive possession of gunpowder in a plastic bottle. Said gunpowder was also taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-3/A in the presence of Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3). Country made pistol was got examined by police from HC Gandhi Ram (PW-2) No. 348 vide certificate Ext. Said gunpowder was also taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-3/A in the presence of Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3). Country made pistol was got examined by police from HC Gandhi Ram (PW-2) No. 348 vide certificate Ext. PW-2/A, which was found in a working condition alongwith live cartridge. Gandhi Ram (PW-2) examined country made pistol as well as cartridge in the presence of Executive Magistrate, Rajgarh, who issued certificate Ext. PW-1/A to this effect. Sample of gunpowder was also taken and sealed in presence of Executive Magistrate, certificate to this effect is Ext. PW-1/B. IO also prepared Khaka of country made pistol and live cartridge which is Ext. PW-3/C. During the course of investigation, complainant and injured Jai Parkash were also got medically examined vide Ext. PW-10/A. Accused and his wife were got examined vide MLC’s, Ext. PW-10/B and PW-10/C. Chemical examination report qua gunpowder is Ext. PW-14/A. Since hair of Sunehro Devi, wife of accused were cut by Krishana Devi, same was also sent for chemical examination. 3. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which came to be registered as Cr. Case No. 41/2 of 2003, under Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 323 IPC and Section 9-B of Explosives Act. Learned trial Court, being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, charged him under Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 323 IPC and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses to prove its case. Accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. Though accused while claiming himself to be innocent, sought time to lead evidence, but the fact remains that no evidence was led by him in his defence. Learned trial Court, on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution, did not find accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 323 IPC and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act as such, acquitted him. In the aforesaid background, State has approached this Court in the instant appeal, seeking therein conviction of the accused, after setting aside judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 5. Mr. In the aforesaid background, State has approached this Court in the instant appeal, seeking therein conviction of the accused, after setting aside judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 5. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, vehemently argued that the same is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record as such same deserves to be set aside. With a view to substantiate aforesaid argument, Mr. Negi made this Court to travel through the evidence led on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that prosecution successfully proved on record that on the date of alleged incident, accused was carrying country made pistol alongwith a live cartridge without there being any valid licence and as such, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to acquit the accused as far as commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act is concerned. Mr. Negi, further contended that all the material prosecution witnesses unequivocally stated before the learned Court below that accused while stopping complainant as well as other persons from cutting and lopping branches of tree, hit the complainant Jai Parkash with the country made pistol, as a result of which he suffered simple injury. Mr. Negi strenuously argued that impugned judgment of acquittal, which is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record, is the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation and misconstruction of the evidence as such, same can not be sustained. With the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Negi, prayed that the accused be convicted and sentenced for the commission of offences punishable under aforesaid provisions of law, after setting aside judgment of acquittal. 6. Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the accused, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Court below, rather perusal of the same suggests that the learned Court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope of interference, if any, by this Court. While refuting aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned Additional Advocate General, learned counsel representing the accused made this court to peruse the evidence led on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that none of the prosecution witnesses was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged occurrence, accused was carrying country made pistol with him and he had caused injury to the complainant namely Jai Parkash. Learned counsel for the accused further contended that bare perusal of statements/depositions made by the prosecution witnesses clearly suggests that there is no consistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses, as such no reliance could be placed upon same by the court below, while ascertaining guilt of the accused, who is an innocent person. Learned counsel for the accused further contended that despite there being availability of number of independent witnesses, there appears to be no attempt on the part of Investigating Officer to associate any independent witness to give strength to the story of the prosecution, rather, all the material prosecution witnesses are related to each other, as such, there was no occasion as such for the learned Court below to place reliance upon their version to hold accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under aforesaid provisions. While referring to the statement of PW-10 Dr. Bakshish Singh, learned counsel contended that it has specifically come in his statement that he had medically examined the complainant, and only simple injury on his person was found as such no case is made out against accused under Section 307 IPC. Learned counsel further contended that bare perusal of MLC Ext. PW-10/A as well as statement of Dr. Bakshish Singh, PW-10 nowhere suggests that injury, if any, caused to the complainant Jai Parkash was caused by sharp or blunt weapon by the accused. Learned counsel further stated that it has specifically come in the cross-examination of PW-10 that simple injury on the person of complainant Jai Parkash could be caused while cutting wood or lopping branches of tree. Bakshish Singh, PW-10 nowhere suggests that injury, if any, caused to the complainant Jai Parkash was caused by sharp or blunt weapon by the accused. Learned counsel further stated that it has specifically come in the cross-examination of PW-10 that simple injury on the person of complainant Jai Parkash could be caused while cutting wood or lopping branches of tree. While referring to the statement of PW-10, learned counsel further contended that it stands duly proved on record that injury was caused to the accused as well as his wife, whose hair was specifically sent for chemical examination, but there is no explanation rendered on record by the prosecution that how accused Sohan Dass as well as his wife suffered injury and as such, story put forth by the prosecution appears to be totally unreliable and untrustworthy. Lastly, the learned counsel representing the accused contended that it has come in the statement of Ved Parkash (PW-3) that accused Sohan Dass had filed civil suit against his brother, Jai Gopal regarding path, who at the relevant time was in the company of the complainant. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the accused contended that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the version put forth by the prosecution witnesses because of material contradictions in their statements with regard to alleged incident as such, learned Court below rightly has acquitted the accused. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. During proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to go through the evidence led on record by the prosecution vis-à-vis impugned judgment of acquittal, perusal whereof nowhere suggests that learned Court below, while acquitting accused, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 323 IPC and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective, rather, this Court, finds from the record that learned Court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously. This court, is unable to accept the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General that learned Court below while recording judgment of acquittal, misread, misinterpreted or misconstrued the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led by the parties, rather, this Court, has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution was not successful to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged occurrence, accused was carrying country made pistol and live cartridge with him. It is not in dispute as clearly emerges from the record that accused Sohan Dass was working with one Jitender Nath, who had appointed accused to take care of his landed property in the village. Perusal of site plan, Ext. PW-15/B, clearly suggests that location of trees, which were allegedly lopped by complainant and other persons, falls within landed property of aforesaid Jitender Nath. There is no effort on the part of the IO to collect evidence, if any, on record suggestive of the fact that Sohan Dass, committed criminal trespass by entering the landed property of Jitender Nath. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that accused Sohan Dass being watchman of landed property of Jitender Nath objected to complainant party and advised them not to cut or lop trees situate in the landed property of Jitender Nath. Similarly, this Court finds from the record that as per prosecution, accused was apprehended by complainant party on the spot alongwith country made pistol and live cartridge, Ext. Exts. P1 and P2 and thereafter, he was taken to Village Bohal, where he was further handed over to the police. Country made pistol alongwith live cartridge which was snatched by Bheem Singh (PW-6), was also handed over to the police by aforesaid witness, as is evident from memo Ext. PW-3/B. Interestingly, perusal of memo Ext. PW-3/B suggests that live cartridge was also recovered at the time of aforesaid recovery effected from accused. Live cartridge of 9 mm was shown to be recovered from the possession of accused, Sohan Dass. Aforesaid country made pistol as well as live cartridge of 9 mm was handed over to the police by Bheem Singh (PW-6), in the presence of Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3), which was subsequently sealed in Pullinda with seal ‘S’. Similarly, Khaka, Ext. PW-3/C shows that live cartridge Ext. P2 in question was found to be of 9 mm. Aforesaid country made pistol as well as live cartridge of 9 mm was handed over to the police by Bheem Singh (PW-6), in the presence of Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3), which was subsequently sealed in Pullinda with seal ‘S’. Similarly, Khaka, Ext. PW-3/C shows that live cartridge Ext. P2 in question was found to be of 9 mm. Though, SI/SHO Lachhaman Dass (PW-15), IO deposed before the learned Court below that live cartridge Ext. P2 was found to be of 9 mm, whereas HC Gandhi Ram (PW-2), who had examined live cartridge and country made pistol in the presence of Executive Magistrate, categorically deposed before the learned Court below that live cartridge was found to be of 8 mm. Similarly, report given by this witness, Ext. PW-2/A also suggests that live cartridge Ext. P2 was of 8 mm. There is no plausible explanation rendered by the prosecution that how live cartridge Ext. P2 was found to be 8 mm at the time of examination of HC Gandhi Ram (PW-2), especially when recovery memo Ext. PW-3/A and Khaka Ext. PW-3/C suggest that live cartridge in question was of 9 mm. Aforesaid glaring discrepancy creates doubt with regard to correctness of the story of the prosecution as such, learned Court below rightly not held the same to be correct. 9. Similarly, Ext. PW-1/A issued by Bhagat Ram (PW-1) Naib Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate Rajgarh shows that Pullinda prepared vide Ext. PW-3/B and sealed with seal ‘S’ was produced by SHO, Police Station Rajgarh, for examination by Gandhi Ram (PW-2) and after examination, said country made pistol and live cartridge were again sealed in Pullinda sealed with seal ‘A’ and thereafter, seal was handed over by Bhagat Ram (PW-1), Executive Magistrate Rajgarh to SHO Lachhaman Dass (PW-15), of Police Station, Rajgarh. Bhagat Ram (PW-1) in his statement stated that he can not say about the rank of the police official, who had produced Pullinda having country made pistol Ext. P1 and live cartridge, Ext. P2. He further stated that he can not say about specifications of seal and number of seals on Pullinda, Ext. P4. Moreover, this witness has also not deposed before the learned Court below, to whom he had handed over seal at the relevant time. Careful perusal of the deposition made by this witness suggests that he was not sure to whom he handed over seal ‘A’. But, in Ext. P4. Moreover, this witness has also not deposed before the learned Court below, to whom he had handed over seal at the relevant time. Careful perusal of the deposition made by this witness suggests that he was not sure to whom he handed over seal ‘A’. But, in Ext. PW-1/A, it has been recorded that Bhagat Ram (PW-1) handed over seal ‘A’ to SHO Police Station, Rajgarh. Cross-examination conducted on this witness further suggests that two Pullindas were produced before him by the police on the same day, whereas record reveals that one Pullinda having gunpowder was produced before this witness on 3.4.2003. Most importantly, Pullinda having pistol and live cartridge was produced before him on 13.3.2003, but if statement of this witness is read in its entirety, it is totally contradictory to the documentary evidence produced on record, especially certificate Ext. PW- 1/A and Ext. PW-1/B. 10. Similarly, there is no explanation why this witness handed over seal ‘A’ to the then SHO Lachhaman Dass (PW-15) of Police Station, Rajgarh. On the top of everything, no such seal ‘A’ was produced on record. SHO Lachhaman Dass (PW-15) failed to produce any seal as mentioned in Ext. PW-1/A, before the Court. Similarly, Bhagat Ram (PW-1), failed to state before the Court below that seal ‘S’ produced by him of Pullinda Ext. P4 was found to be correct and intact, rather, memo Ext. PW-3/B shows that Pullinda was sealed on the spot with seal ‘S’, and handed over to witness namely Ram Parkash. But interestingly, memo Ext. PW-3/B, nowhere suggests that witness namely Ram Parkash was a witness to the same. Similarly, version put forth by Ved Parkash (PW-3) also does not appear to be trustworthy, rather, version put forth by him appears to be totally incorrect. This witness stated that he has no knowledge what type of seal was used to seal country made pistol and live cartridge on the spot. This witness has also not stated that seal ‘S’ was handed over to witness Ram Parkash or to him. He in his cross-examination further stated that Ext. PW-3/A and Khaka Ext. PW-3/C were signed by him in the Police Station after 2-3 days of incident and at that time, he was present in the Police Station, with Rattan Singh(PW- 7). 11. He in his cross-examination further stated that Ext. PW-3/A and Khaka Ext. PW-3/C were signed by him in the Police Station after 2-3 days of incident and at that time, he was present in the Police Station, with Rattan Singh(PW- 7). 11. Version put forth by Bhagat Ram (PW-1), PW-3 Ved Parkash (PW-3) and Rattan Singh(PW-7) completely falsifies the story of recovery, if any, effected from the accused. SI/SHO Lachhaman Dass (PW-15) in his statement, stated that Ext. PW-3/B was prepared on the spot. This version was not supported and corroborated by Ved Parkash (PW-3), who in his statement categorically stated that memo Ext. PW-3/A and Khaka PW-3/C were signed by him as well as Rattan Singh(PW-7) in the Police Station, 2-3 days after the incident. 12. Rattan Singh(PW-7) i.e. another signing witness of Ext. P3 deposed that Ext. P3 was prepared in the house of Sohan Dass and he has seen live cartridge in the hands of Bheem Singh (PW-6). This version is also contradictory to the statement of PW-15 as well as PW-3. Bheem Singh (PW-6) stated that memo Ext. PW-3/B as well as Khaka Ext. PW-3/C was prepared on the spot, where he had snatched country made pistol from the accused. Version put forth by both these witnesses is altogether contrary to the version put forth by the aforesaid material prosecution witnesses. As such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that country made pistol as well as live cartridge was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused, on the date of alleged incident. 13. Similarly, recovery of gunpowder Ext. PW-3/A is also doubtful. Recovery memo Ext. PW-3/A, suggests that gunpowder was recovered by the police from the accused from his house in the presence of Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3) but, interestingly, aforesaid witnesses Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3) categorically stated before the learned Court below that they remained outside the house of the accused when police officials were making search inside the house of accused. There is no statement of this witness from where it can be inferred that they had also gone inside the house of the accused at the time of recovery alongwith police party. Since, these witnesses have categorically deposed that they had signed the recovery memo Ext. There is no statement of this witness from where it can be inferred that they had also gone inside the house of the accused at the time of recovery alongwith police party. Since, these witnesses have categorically deposed that they had signed the recovery memo Ext. PW-3/A in the police station after 2-3 days, story put forth by the prosecution with regard to alleged recovery of gunpowder from the house of the accused deserves to be rejected outrightly being false. 14. SI Lachhaman Dass (PW-15), in his statement stated that the bottle, Ext. P3 containing gunpowder was recovered from the house of accused, in the presence of Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash, which version put forth by him is altogether contrary to the statements of PW Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash, who categorically stated that they had not gone inside the house of accused during search conducted by the police. There is another aspect of the matter, wherein, PW-3 Ved Parkash stated that accused was apprehended on the spot and thereafter taken to the house of Ram Parkash, who later on informed the Pradhan, but interestingly, said Ram Parkash was not cited as a prosecution witness. Similarly, it emerges from the record that another person namely Om Parkash was also present on the spot at the time of alleged investigation and recovery effected by the police but there is no explanation rendered on record by the prosecution for not citing him as prosecution witness. PW-4 Jai Parkash in his statement has stated that house of accused was searched and raided by the police party in the presence of Ranvir Singh, Chowkidar of Gram Panchayat but Ranvir Singh, Chowkidar was also not cited as prosecution witness. This omission on the part of the prosecution to cite aforesaid persons namely Om Parkash, Ram Parkash and Ranvir Singh, Chowkidar who could be material witnesses to prove the story of the prosecution, certainly compels this Court to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that story put forth by the prosecution is a concocted one and same can not be relied upon. 15. Interestingly, in the case at hand, perusal of record suggests that prosecution chose only to examine interested witnesses namely Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3) as witnesses of alleged recovery memos i.e. Exts. PW-3/A, PW-3/B and Khaka Ext. 15. Interestingly, in the case at hand, perusal of record suggests that prosecution chose only to examine interested witnesses namely Rattan Singh(PW-7) and Ved Parkash (PW-3) as witnesses of alleged recovery memos i.e. Exts. PW-3/A, PW-3/B and Khaka Ext. PW-3/C. It has come in the evidence that Ved Parkash (PW-3), Jai Parkash and Jai Gopal are real brothers and Krishna Devi is their sister. Similarly, Bheem Singh (PW-6) had been working in the landed property of Jai Gopal, for the last 40-42 years. Prosecution has not bothered to examine Jai Gopal and Dayal Singh, who were also present on the spot, on the date of alleged incident. Similarly, it has specifically come in the statement of PW-15 that he had visited the spot in the village and at the time of alleged recovery, many persons of the village had gathered at the spot. It is not understood that why IO failed to make efforts to associate independent witnesses from the locality, specifically when they were easily available on the spot, rather, in the case at hand, IO preferred to record statements of interested witnesses and close relatives of the complainant. Though, prosecution with a view to prove injury on the body of the complainant Jai Parkash examined PW-10 Dr. Bakshish Singh, who categorically stated that he had medically examined injured Jai Parkash on 2.3.2003 and had found simple injury on his person. He further stated that he had issued MLC Ext. PW-10/A, but that may not be sufficient to conclude that injury suffered by complainant Jai Parkash was actually caused by accused. As has been discussed above, prosecution was not able to connect accused with the commission of alleged offence, as such, proving of injury by leading medical evidence, may not of any relevance, as far as facts and circumstances of the instant case are concerned. 16. Similarly, this Court finds from the record that accused as well as his wife had also suffered injury, as is evident from MLC’s, Exts. PW-10/B and PW-10/C but there is no explanation rendered on record by the prosecution that how accused Sohan Dass received injury on his person and under what circumstances hair of his wife Sunehro Devi was found to have been cut. 17. PW-10/B and PW-10/C but there is no explanation rendered on record by the prosecution that how accused Sohan Dass received injury on his person and under what circumstances hair of his wife Sunehro Devi was found to have been cut. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajmer Singh vs. State of Haryana decided on 15 February, 2010, [2010(2) RCR (Crl) 132] has held that the police has to show that efforts were made to associate independent witnesses but same could not be associated despite such efforts. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of the official witness cannot be relied upon as their testimony, has not been corroborated by any independent witness. We are unable to agree with the said submission of the learned Counsel. It is clear from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses PW-3 Paramjit Singh Ahalwat, D.S.P., Pehowa, PW-4 Raja Ram, Head Constable and PW-5 Maya Ram, which is on record, that efforts were made by the investigating party to include independent witness at the time of recovery, but none was willing. It is true that a charge under the Act is serious and carries onerous consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is imprisonment of 10 years and fine. In this situation, it is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that it would be travesty of justice, if the appellant is acquitted merely because no independent witness has been produced. We cannot forget that it may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute. If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence. The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence. In the present case, both the trial court and the High Court by applying recognized principle of evaluation of evidence of witnesses has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant was arrested and Charas was recovered from the possession of the appellant for which he had no licence. We find no good reason to differ from that finding.” 18. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that police made any efforts to join witnesses, which were admittedly available at the spot, as is evident from the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, despite availability of independent witnesses, the police have chosen only to associate interested persons/close relatives of the complainant, which renders the whole story of the prosecution doubtful. 19. 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. 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. 20. 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 petitioneraccused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in State of UP versus Ghambhir Singh & others, AIR 2005 (92) 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. 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.” 21. 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.” 22. 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.” 22. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no reason to differ with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, which appears to be based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record. 23. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Judgment passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 24. Case property, if not destroyed, be destroyed.