JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Appellant-State has filed instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against judgment dated 31.1.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 97/03 of 2007. 2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.2.2006 at about 12.15 am, ASI Sudheer (PW-7) along with Constable Phool Singh No. 297 (PW-2) was checking vehicle No. HP-01-1396 being driven by Mohender Singh (PW-1) at Zero point on Kumarhatti-Nahan road for Nakabandi, when a truck bearing registration No. HP-09-633 (Tata 407) came from the direction of Sultanpur, which was signaled to stop but the driver of the said truck did not stop and fled away. Truck was followed by the police in the taxi. Police Station Dharampur was informed telephonically. The truck was later found parked near “Bere Ka Khech” at about 1.15 am. Police party reached the spot and on checking, recovered 40 cartons of country liquor mark ‘Saroor” and 6 cartons of foreign liquor mark “Bagpiper” containing 12 bottles each. Police also took 6 bottles each from country made liquor and foreign liquor as sample for the purpose of chemical examination and they were sealed with seal impression “R’. Sample seals were also taken on separate piece of cloth and after use seal was handed over to Mohender Singh (PW-1). Recovered liquor along with truck No. HP-09-0633, without documents and key, was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo in the presence of witnesses. Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police Station, Dharampur, whereafter FIR No. 24/06 dated 19.2.2016, Ext. PW-3/A was registered. Investigation was carried out by ASI Sudheer Kumar, incharge Police Post Dagshai. Spot was inspected and spot map Ext. PW-7/C was prepared. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded as per their version. Police party was sent for tracing the accused. Two persons namely Rakesh Kumar and Mintoo Ram were arrested on 20.2.2006. On 21.2.2006, they were produced before the Court, from where they were released on bail. Reports, Ext. PW-7/G to Ext. PW-7/K from CTL Kandaghat were obtained. Accused Rakesh Kumar handed over RC along with key of the truck No. HP-09-0633 on 22.2.2006, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo. On 21.2.2006, they were produced before the Court, from where they were released on bail. Reports, Ext. PW-7/G to Ext. PW-7/K from CTL Kandaghat were obtained. Accused Rakesh Kumar handed over RC along with key of the truck No. HP-09-0633 on 22.2.2006, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo. The vehicle was released on Sapurdari as per the order of the Court to its owner Shri Devinder Singh son of Maan Singh. After completion of investigation, Challan was put up in the Court. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, charged them under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas, respondent-accused while recording statements under Section 313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution and claimed themselves to be innocent. However, the fact remains that though opportunity was granted to the accused to lead evidence, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. It may be noticed that the respondent-accused Mintoo Ram, died during the pendency of the trial and as such, trial against him stood abated. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced before it by the prosecution acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him and as such, appellant-State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal recorded by trial Court has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his conviction for the commission of offence punishable under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below. 5. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, 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 as such, same requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, 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 as such, same requires to be quashed and set aside. Learned Additional Advocate General, further contended that bare perusal of evidence available on record, suggests that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 19.2.2006, truck being driven by accused was apprehended/caught by the police carrying liquor, without there being any valid permit, as such, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to acquit the accused. While referring to the statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses, especially Phool Singh (PW-2), Constable Gurdev Singh (PW-3), HHC Nek Ram (PW-4), Constable Durga Dutt (PW-5), Jai Singh (PW-6) and Sudheer Kumar (PW-7), Mr. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, forcefully contended that the statements made by these witnesses, if are read in conjunction, same clearly prove the guilt of the accused, as such, there was no scope left for the learned Court below to hold accused not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act. While referring to the statement of Mohender Singh (PW-1), independent witness, associated by the police, Mr. Chauhan, contended that it is true that this witness turned hostile, but if his statement is read in its entirety, more particularly the admissions made by him in his cross-examination, it clearly proves the case of the prosecution that on 19.2.2006, truck being driven by accused was taken into possession and during search, liquor being transported illegally without any permit, was recovered. With the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Chauhan, prayed that the present appeal may be allowed and accused be convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Act ibid, after setting aside judgment of acquittal. 6. Per contra, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel representing the accused, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below. Mr. Chauhan, prayed that the present appeal may be allowed and accused be convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Act ibid, after setting aside judgment of acquittal. 6. Per contra, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel representing the accused, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below. Mr. Sharma, while refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned Additional Advocate General, contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, rather the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence as such, there is no scope of interference by this Court. While inviting attention of this Court to the statement of Mohender Singh (PW-1), so-called independent witness associated by the police, Mr. Sharma, contended that it has specifically come in his statement that the truck allegedly being driven by the accused was found parked near “Bere Ka Khech” and at the relevant point of time, nobody was in the truck. He further contended that it has also come in his statement that when signal was given to the truck at Naka to stop, lights of cabin were not on as such, he was not in a position to see the driver and other occupant sitting in the truck. Mr. Sharma, further contended that as per the story of the prosecution itself, seal impression “R”, after sealing the samples allegedly drawn by the police, was handed over to Mohender Singh (PW-1), but in his cross-examination, Mohender Singh categorically denied the factum with regard to drawing of samples and thereafter, its sealing by the police, as such, learned trial Court rightly denied the story of the prosecution with regard to alleged recovery from the truck. Mr. Sharma, while referring to the statements of other prosecution witnesses also pointed out certain contradictions to demonstrate that there are inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, as such, learned Court below rightly did not place reliance upon the same, while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. Mr. Mr. Sharma, while referring to the statements of other prosecution witnesses also pointed out certain contradictions to demonstrate that there are inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, as such, learned Court below rightly did not place reliance upon the same, while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. Mr. Sharma, further contended that as per own case of prosecution though 40 cartons of country liquor and 6 cartons of foreign liquor containing 12 bottles each, were recovered but only 6 bottles from each lot were taken as sample for the purpose of chemical examination, as such, recovery, if any, of only 12 bottles of liquor is proved against the accused. In this regard Mr. Sharma placed reliance upon judgments passed by our own High Court in Surender Singh. V. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2013 (2) 865 and State of HP v. Jagjit Singh, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 919. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. Though, in the instant case, prosecution with a view to prove its case against the accused, examined as many as seven witnesses, statement of Mohender Singh (PW-1) is most relevant for the adjudication of the case, because he was associated by the police during Naka as an independent witness. Mohender Singh (PW-1), deposed before the Court below that he remained associated with the police during the investigation. This witness stated before the court below that he was at his home, when police telephonically called him and thereafter he took police officials to Zero Point, where they started checking the vehicles. It has come in his statement that at about 12.30 am, one truck bearing registration No. HP-09-0633, came from the direction of Sultanpur towards Kumarhatti, which failed to stop despite there being signal to stop by the police. He further stated that truck driver took the vehicle towards Kumarhatti, whereafter, police followed it in his taxi but they failed to nab the accused. He also stated that Police Station, Dharampur was informed by the police officials. It has also come in his statement that thereafter they went to the Police Station, from where they again went to Siharda road, where aforesaid truck was found parked in locked condition. He further stated that driver of the truck was not present there. He also stated that Police Station, Dharampur was informed by the police officials. It has also come in his statement that thereafter they went to the Police Station, from where they again went to Siharda road, where aforesaid truck was found parked in locked condition. He further stated that driver of the truck was not present there. This witness categorically stated before the learned Court below that he could not say that whether the accused, who was present in the Court, was driving said truck. Though he corroborated the story of the prosecution that the truck was searched and 40 cartons of country liquor mark “Saroor” and 6 cartons of foreign liquor of mark ‘Bagpiper” were recovered but, in his cross-examination, he categorically denied that accused present in the Court was driving aforesaid vehicle on 19.2.2006. Similarly, he stated that he does not know whether one bottle each from these cartons was taken for the purpose of chemical examination and after that they were sealed with seal impression ‘R’ and thereafter, sample seal was handed over to him. Though, in his cross-examination he admitted that the truck was taken into possession by the police in his presence, but he denied that in his presence, Phool Singh (PW-2) and Sudheer Kumar (PW-7) appended their signatures. Aforesaid witness was declared hostile, but, even the cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere discloses that the prosecution was able to extract anything from him contrary to what he stated in examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned defence counsel, he stated that he was called to Police Station by the police officials because he was a taxi driver and police hired his taxi. He stated that he reached police post at 1.30 am and returned back home at 2.00 am. He also feigned ignorance that how police officials opened the truck since it was locked. It has specifically come in the statement of aforesaid witness that police officials used to hire his taxi. Aforesaid version put forth by this prosecution witness nowhere supports the story of the prosecution, rather, there are major contradictions with regard to time of the incident and hiring of taxi by the police. It has specifically come in the statement of aforesaid witness that police officials used to hire his taxi. Aforesaid version put forth by this prosecution witness nowhere supports the story of the prosecution, rather, there are major contradictions with regard to time of the incident and hiring of taxi by the police. This witness in his examination-in-chief stated that at about 12.30 am, truck came from the direction of Sultanpur towards Kumarhatti, whereas in his cross-examination, he stated that he reached the police post at about 1.30 am and returned back home at about 2.00 am. 9. True it is, statement of a witness, who has turned hostile can not be ignored in its entirety, rather, same can be relied upon to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution, but in the instant case, as is quite evident from the discussion made herein above, prosecution was not able to extract anything from this witness, which could prove its case against the accused. 10. Similarly, other witness i.e. Constable Phool Singh (PW-2), stated in his cross-examination that during his posting as a Constable at police post Dagshai, he remained associated in the investigation. He denied that on 19.2.2006, he and Mohender Singh (PW-1) along with ASI Sudheer Kumar (PW-7), were conducting checking at Zero point on Nahan road, in taxi No. HP-01-1396. It has come in his statement that at about 12.30 am, a truck bearing registration No. HP-09-0633 came from Sultanpur road towards Kumarhatti, which was being driven by accused person and accused was signaled to stop the vehicle, but he did not stop and fled away towards Kumarhatti. He further stated that one another person was also sitting in the said truck, whose name was Mintoo and he identified them because light of cabin of truck was on. He also stated that truck was followed upto Dharampur, whereafter, truck fled away. He also stated that thereafter, they went to Siharda road and at about 12.50 am, aforesaid truck was found parked and its driver and helper were found missing. He also stated that the truck was searched and liquor was recovered. He also stated that samples drawn by the police were sealed with seal impression “R” and after use, the seal was handed over to witness Mohender Singh (PW-1). He also stated that the truck was searched and liquor was recovered. He also stated that samples drawn by the police were sealed with seal impression “R” and after use, the seal was handed over to witness Mohender Singh (PW-1). In his cross-examination, he stated that Mohender Singh (PW-1) was a taxi driver but he categorically denied that he used to hire taxi of Mohender Singh (PW-1) on regular basis. He also denied that he called Mohender Singh (PW-1) to the Police Station and aforesaid Mohender Singh (PW-1) remained with them from 9.30 pm to 3.00 am, This witness admitted that accused was known to him and he had told ASI regarding this fact. He also stated in his cross-examination that driver of truck fled away after leaving the truck unlocked. This witness also stated in his cross-examination that the accused came to the Police Station on their own and they were arrested on 19.2.2006. Version put forth by this witness, if is read in conjunction with the statement of PW-1, it completely falsifies the story of the prosecution. As per Mohender Singh (PW-1), he was called by the police on the spot telephonically whereas, Phool Singh (PW-2) categorically denied that police called Mohender Singh (PW-1) to the Police Station and thereafter he had remained with them till 3.00 am. 11. Similarly, Mohender Singh (PW-1) stated that truck was found parked at “Bere Ka Khech” but the same was locked however PW-2 stated that the driver had fled away after leaving truck unlocked. There are also contradictions in their statements with regard to handing over of seal after sealing samples because Mohender Singh (PW-1) has specifically denied that the seal after its use was handed over to him, whereas, Phool Singh (PW-2) stated that seal after its use was handed over to Mohender Singh (PW-1). 12. Constable Gurdev Singh (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief stated that he remained associated with the police investigation till 19.2.2006. He along with Head Constable Ram Lal went to the place “Bere Ka Khech” on motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-14-0872 and on another motor cycle Yashwant and Nek Ram (PW-4) also left for the spot. He stated that at about 1.45 am, truck No. HP- 09-0633 was searched, from which liquor was recovered. He along with Head Constable Ram Lal went to the place “Bere Ka Khech” on motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-14-0872 and on another motor cycle Yashwant and Nek Ram (PW-4) also left for the spot. He stated that at about 1.45 am, truck No. HP- 09-0633 was searched, from which liquor was recovered. He stated that Rukka was prepared and handed over to him by ASI Sudheer Kumar, along with case property (sample) and sent to the Police Station, on which FIR Ext. PW-3/A was registered and signed by SHO Kanwar Singh, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that Phool Singh (PW-2) and Mohender Singh (PW-1) came in taxi at Police Station but again volunteered that they met them at the spot. 13. Similarly, HHC Nek Ram (PW-4) also stated that as per direction of SHO Dharampur, he along with Constable Yashwant Singh, went to the spot on motor cycle No. HP-14- 1079 and reached at “Bere Ka Khech” at about 1.45 am and in another motor cycle Ram Lal and Gurdev Singh (PW-3) along with search light also reached there, on which truck No. HP-09-0633 was searched and aforementioned liquor was recovered. During his cross-examination, he has stated that the cabin of said truck was unlocked. He stated that he did not remember how many persons were present at the spot and whether he had signed any document or not. 14. Version put forth by Gurdev Singh (PW-3) and HHC Nek Ram (PW-4) is in total contradiction with the version put forth by Mohender Singh (PW-1) and Phool Singh (PW-2), because there is no mention, if any, in the statements of Mohender Singh (PW-1) and Phool Singh (PW-2) with regard to presence of PW-3 and PW-4 on the spot. It has come in the statement of PW-2 Phool Singh that they had informed the Police Station, Dharampur, but there is no statement/deposition that SHO Dharampur was requested by ASI Sudheer Kumar (PW-7) to send police officials towards Siharda road. Interestingly, it is not understood that on what basis, police party proceeded towards Siharda road, because as per version put forth by aforesaid prosecution witnesses, police followed the truck but they were unable to catch the same on Dharampur road. Interestingly, it is not understood that on what basis, police party proceeded towards Siharda road, because as per version put forth by aforesaid prosecution witnesses, police followed the truck but they were unable to catch the same on Dharampur road. There is nothing on record, from where it can be inferred that police got information that truck has gone towards Siharda road, as such, story put forth by the prosecution with regard to idle parking of truck No. HP-09-0633 on Siharda road does not appear to be believable. 15. Head Constable Jai Singh (PW-6) and Constable Durga Dutt (PW-5) deposed before the learned Court below with regard to depositing of case property along with truck at Police Station and handing over of samples to CTL Kandaghat for chemical examination. As per Constable Jai Singh (PW-6), Gurdev Singh (PW-3) deposited the case property along with truck No. HP-09-0633 at Police Station and entry regarding the same was made in the Malkhana register. He stated that on 20.2.2006 as per RC No. 109/06 dated 20.2.2006, he handed over 6 bottles of mark ‘Saroor” and 6 bottles of mark ‘Bagpiper” (total 12 bottles) sealed with seal impression “R” to Constable Durga Dutt for the purpose of depositing the same at CTL Kandaghat and on the same day, said constable handed over receipt thereof to him. He also stated that during the period case property remained in his possession, it was not tampered with, however, during his cross-examination he stated that he had not brought the register regarding said entry. 16. Durga Dutt (PW-5) in his examination stated that MHC Jai Singh (PW-6) had handed over 12 bottles sealed with 12 seal impressions of ‘R’ vide RC No. 109/06 dated 20.2.2006 for the purpose of depositing them at CTL Kandaghat for chemical examination and on the same day, he got them deposited at CTL Kandaghat and after returning back handed over the receipt to MHC. He also stated that during the period case property remained in his possession, it was not tampered with. However, in his cross-examination he stated that he had not seen RC on the case file on that day and he had not brought the same along with him. 17. Interestingly, there is no mention, if any, regarding handing over of seal by this witness to CTL Kandaghat, for comparison. However, in his cross-examination he stated that he had not seen RC on the case file on that day and he had not brought the same along with him. 17. Interestingly, there is no mention, if any, regarding handing over of seal by this witness to CTL Kandaghat, for comparison. It has come in his statement that he had taken samples but he has not stated that specimen seal was also given to him for depositing in CTL Kandaghat. Samples were sent to CTL Kandaghat through Jai Singh (PW-6), who simply deposed that he had sent samples through PW-5 Durga Dutt. Interestingly, he nowhere stated that specimen seal impression was also sent separately for chemical analysis. 18. True it is, that reports of CTL, Ext. PW-7/G to Ext. PW-7/K show that specimen seal impression allegedly separately sent, tallied with the seal impressions on the samples, however, link evidence is missing as to how the specimen seal impression reached the chemical analyst. Similarly, it emerges from the record that there is no mention if any in the Challan with regard to sending of specimen seal to CTL Kandaghat. This certainly creates doubt with regard to genuineness of prosecution case. 19. This court in case titled State of H.P. vs. Pankaj Sood, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 727 has held that in such a case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that the samples were sent along with the sample seal for comparison and it was held that the prosecution case was doubtful on this count. It was further held by this Court in the aforesaid case that prosecution is obliged to prove that the article recovered from the possession of the accused is a contraband within the meaning of the Act. For that right from the time of recovery till examination of the samples, link is required to be completely proved. Seals used on the samples must be intact and unbroken and the said seals should tally with the sample of the seal taken separately at the time of sampling by the Investigating Officer to overrule every possibility of tampering with the contents of the samples. 20. Seals used on the samples must be intact and unbroken and the said seals should tally with the sample of the seal taken separately at the time of sampling by the Investigating Officer to overrule every possibility of tampering with the contents of the samples. 20. Sudheer Kumar (PW-7) is the Investigating Officer of the case, who stated that in the year 2006, he remained posted as in-charge of police post Dagshai and on 18.2.2006, at about 9.30 pm, he along with Constable Phool Singh left for the place Zero Point at Kumarhatti on a motor cycle for the purpose of Nakabandi, regarding which Rapat Ext. PW-7/A was entered. He stated that at about 12.30 am, when they were present at Zero Point, Kumarhatti and were checking taxi No. HP-01-1396, truck bearing No. HP-09-0633 came from the direction of Sultanpur towards Kumarhatti, which was signaled to stop but the driver of the truck did not stop and fled away towards Kumarhatti with the vehicle. This witness stated that the light of the cabin of the truck was on and along with the driver of the truck, one another person was also sitting therein. He stated that the truck was followed by the taxi and police of Police Station, Dharampur was informed. He further stated that at the place “Bere Ka Khech”, said truck was found parked and driver along with another person had fled away, after locking the truck. He also stated that in the presence of witnesses, Mohender Singh and Phool Singh, truck was searched and 40 cartons of country liquor of “Saroor” brand and 6 cartons of foreign made liquor of “Bagpiper” brand, containing 12 bottles each of 750 ml liquor were recovered. He also stated that 6 bottles each from the country liquor “Saroor” and foreign liquor “Bagpiper) were drawn for the purpose of chemical examination and sealed with “R”. Seal after use was handed over to witness Mohender Singh (PW-1). It has also come in his statement that liquor along with truck was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/A upon which Mohender Singh and Phool Singh appended their signatures as witnesses. Seal after use was handed over to witness Mohender Singh (PW-1). It has also come in his statement that liquor along with truck was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/A upon which Mohender Singh and Phool Singh appended their signatures as witnesses. However, the fact remains that aforesaid version put forth by this witness is in total contradiction to the version put forth by PW-1, who has categorically stated that he was called from his house by the police and police used to hire his taxi on many occasions. 21. It has also come in his statement that on 20.2.2006, Rakesh Kumar and Mintoo, accused, were called to the Police Station during investigation. Rakesh handed over key and RC of the truck, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ext. PW-1/B, in the presence of Mohender Singh and Phool Singh. He also stated that statements of witnesses were recorded as per their versions and accused were released on bail by the Court on 21.2.2006. Interestingly, this witness, in cross-examination admits that in the FIR, there is no mention of the names of the accused persons but, when he was confronted with the endorsement on Rukka, Ext. PW-3/B, there is no reference that the light of the cabin of the vehicle was on. He stated that during investigation, involvement of the accused in the present offence was found. He further stated that the key of the truck was taken by him from the accused Rakesh on the very next day. He also stated that the driver of the truck was called on the spot and not at the Police Station. 22. Phool Singh (PW-2) is the only witness, who has stated that he had seen the accused driving the truck on the relevant day and another accused was sitting therein. None of the other witnesses has corroborated aforesaid statement of PW-2, as such, his statement was not rightly relied upon by the learned Court below, while ascertaining correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution. PW-2 in his statement stated that accused came to the Police Station on his own and was arrested on 19.2.2006, which version of his is in total contradiction to the statement of PW-7, who stated that on 20.2.2006, accused were called to the Police Station. PW-2 in his statement stated that accused came to the Police Station on his own and was arrested on 19.2.2006, which version of his is in total contradiction to the statement of PW-7, who stated that on 20.2.2006, accused were called to the Police Station. It is not understood that once Constable Phool Singh (PW-2), had identified the accused on the spot on the relevant day, and they were known to him, what prevented the police from mentioning their names in the FIR Ext. PW-3/A. Investigating Officer, PW-7, in his cross-examination, specifically admitted that in the FIR, Ext. PW-3/A, there is no mention of the names of accused and there is no explanation on record, why their names were not mentioned in the FIR despite the fact that Phool Singh, PW-2 had disclosed to PW-7, that accused were known to him. 23. This Court, after having perused evidence led on record by the prosecution, has no hesitation to conclude that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the version put forth by the prosecution witnesses being contradictory in nature. There are inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to time, place and presence of the witnesses on the spot and even the sole independent witness associated by the prosecution has turned hostile and he has nowhere supported the prosecution case, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, which is definitely based upon proper appreciation of evidence. 24. 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. 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. 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. 25. 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. 25. Leaving everything aside, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that only six bottles of mark “Saroor” out of forty cartons and six bottles of mark “Bagpiper” out of six cartons were drawn as sample and sent for examination to CTL Kandaghat, as such, from the reports of CTL Kandaghat verifying therein presence of liquor, content is only proved qua twelve bottles in all as such, recovery, of twelve bottles only is proved against the accused, whereas all 480 bottles of country made liquor mark “Saroor” and 72 bottles of foreign liquor mark “Bagpiper” allegedly recovered from the truck being driven by the accused, were required to be sent for chemical examination, but in the instant case, only twelve bottles were sent for chemical examination as such the whole of the recovery is vitiated. 26. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by our own High Court in “Surender Singh. V. State of H.P.”, Latest HLJ 2013 (2) 865, which reads as under:- “26. In the instant case, it be also noticed that there is yet another major flaw in the investigation by the police. Assuming that the contraband was actually recovered by the police party, police did not take samples from all the boxes. Samples only from few bottles out of some of the boxes, which they had opened, were taken. None of these witnesses have deposed that the remaining boxes were sealed; from outside appeared to be of the same make or brand; bearing serial numbers; the date of manufacture; or the place and the name of the manufacturer. All that these witnesses have deposed is that boxes of alcohol, as described above, were found in the vehicle. Inside the boxes could be anything. Police could not prove that the remaining boxes actually contained liquor. The samples cannot be said to be representative in character. 27. In similar circumstances, this Court in Mahajan versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2003 Cr.L.J. 1346; State of H.P. versus Ramesh Chand, Latest HLJ 2007 (2) 1017; Dharam Pal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2009 (2) Shim. LC 208; and State of Himachal Pradesh versus Kuldeep Singh & others, 2010(2) Him. 27. In similar circumstances, this Court in Mahajan versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2003 Cr.L.J. 1346; State of H.P. versus Ramesh Chand, Latest HLJ 2007 (2) 1017; Dharam Pal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2009 (2) Shim. LC 208; and State of Himachal Pradesh versus Kuldeep Singh & others, 2010(2) Him. L.R. 825, acquitted the accused, as prosecution could not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, as to what was actually there in the remaining boxes. 28. As per version of PW-1, outside the boxes ‘Sirmour No.1’ was printed which version stands denied by PW-7. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the remaining boxes were in fact containing liquor. Quantity of the remaining bottles of the boxes from which samples were drawn has also not been proved to be liquor. These aspects have not been considered by the Courts below. The cumulative effect is that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt and as such judgments of the Courts below are not sustainable in law.” 27. Reliance is also placed on the judgment passed by this Court State of HP v. Jagjit Singh, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 919, wherein this Court has observed in paras 6 and 7 as under:- “6.At the very outset, I would like to say that neither the non-compliance of sub-section (6) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will render the search illegally nor the respondent can be acquitted on this sole ground. However, in the instant case the regrettable feature is that as per the case of the prosecution 72 pouches of country liquor of “Gulab” brand country liquor containing 180 ml. each were recovered from the possession of the respondent. Admittedly, one pouch of 180 ml. out of the recovered quantity was retained as a sample, which was of licit origin as opined by the Chemical Analyst. 7. There is nothing on record to show that the remaining 71 pouches alleged to have been recovered from the respondent also contain the country liquor more than the permissible quantity without the permit or licence. Before the respondent could be convicted for the offence charged, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the respondent was in actual and conscious possession of the licit liquor in excess of the prescribed limit.” 28. Before the respondent could be convicted for the offence charged, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the respondent was in actual and conscious possession of the licit liquor in excess of the prescribed limit.” 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, there are major flaws in the investigation of the prosecution and prosecution story does not appear to be believable. Besides this, there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which definitely can not be relied to hold the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. Case property, if not destroyed, be destroyed forthwith.