JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Cr.M.P No.264 of 2017 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 84 days in filing the appeal, which is in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Cr.MP(M) No.263 of 2017 2. Instant leave to appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 6.9.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.18-ST/7 of 2015, whereby respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of notice of accusation put to him under Sections 354, 354-D, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Section 12 of POCSO Act. 3. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that prosecutrix, who at that relevant time was pursing her Bachelor of Arts degree course in 1st year at Government P.G. College, Nahan, made a complaint to the police stating therein that on 12.3.2015, at about 1:00/1:30 PM, when she alongwith her friend namely Upasana was sitting in the class room of her college, accused barged into class room and caught hold of her by her hand and pushed her down. Prosecutrix further complained that thereafter accused bolted the door of the room from inside and when prosecutrix tried to go out of the room, she was pushed aside by the accused, who also smashed the door pane. However, friend of the prosecutrix namely Upasana went out from the room and reported the matter to Sh. Ravi Kant, an Assistant Professor in the college, who subsequently came into the room and questioned the accused about his conduct, but since accused was not relenting, he called his other colleagues and thereafter the matter was reported to the police. Prosecutrix further reported that having arrived at home, she narrated the whole incident to her father. On the next day, the prosecutrix accompanied by her father went to Police Station, Nahan and reported the matter vide written complaint, on the basis of which formal FIR came to be registered against the accused under Sections 354, 354-D, 342 and 506. Statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C by the Judicial Magistrate. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law. 4. Statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C by the Judicial Magistrate. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law. 4. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation under Section 354, 354-D, 342 and 506 read with Section 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 6.9.2016 acquitted the respondent-accused of aforesaid notice of accusation put to him. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of respondent accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 6. At this stage, it may be noticed that Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, made available complete case files to enable this court to go through the evidence be it ocular or documentary led on record by the prosecution. 7. Mr. M.L.Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, contended that same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that bare perusal of the impugned judgment itself suggests that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record and respondent-accused has been let off on very flimsy grounds. 8. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid submission, Mr. Chauhan, made this Court to travel through the statements of prosecution witnesses to demonstrate that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent accused indulged in eveteasing/indecent behaviour on the date of alleged occurrence and as such, there was no occasion for the court below to acquit the respondent-accused. Mr. Chauhan, while referring to the statements of PW-2, her friend PW-3 and PW-5, forcibly contended that it stood proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.3.2015 accused barged into the class room, where prosecutrix alongwith her friend was sitting and caught hold of her by her hand. While specifically referring to the statement of PW-5, Sh. Ravi kant, Assistant Professor, Mr. While specifically referring to the statement of PW-5, Sh. Ravi kant, Assistant Professor, Mr. Chauhan, contended that once candid statement to the effect that on 12.3.2015 accused barged into the class room of prosecutrix and caught hold of her by her hand, was made by aforesaid witness there was no ground, if any, for the court below to acquit the respondent accused, who admittedly indulged in very heinous crime. With aforesaid submissions, Mr. Chauhan, prayed that instant leave to appeal may be granted and judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below may be quashed and set-aside. 9. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. While refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by Mr. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Kanwar, strenuously argued that bare perusal of impugned judgment itself suggests that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date i.e. 12.3.2015 accused barged into the class room and caught hold of prosecutrix. With a view to demonstrate that there were material contradictions in the statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses, Mr. Kanwar, made this court to travel through the statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 to suggest that no conviction, if any, could be recorded by the Court below on the statements having been made by these so called witnesses because all these three witnesses gave all together different version with regard to sequence of events allegedly occurred on the date of occurrence. Mr. Kanwar, contended that there is no merit in the present appeal and as such same deserve to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 11. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses viz-a-viz impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, perusal whereof, certainly not suggest that there is misreading, mis- appreciation and misconstruction of the evidence by the learned court while acquitting the respondent- accused of the notice of accusation put to him. Rather, this court after having carefully perused and analyzed the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.3.2015, accused barged into the class room of the prosecutrix and caught hold of her by her hand. It also emerge from the report submitted by the investigating agency to the court below that though there was a reference of some previous conduct of accused in harassing the prosecutrix i.e. prior to actual date of incident i.e.12.3.2015, but no evidence, if any, was led on record in this regard by the prosecution and as such, learned court below rightly ignored the same. 12. Prosecutrix while making her statement as PW-2 deposed before the court below that on 12.3.2015, at about 1:00/1:30 PM she was sitting in the class room alongwith her friend namely Upasana(PW-3). It has also come in her statement that at the relevant time, one of her male class mate was also inside the room. She further stated that accused entered inside the class room and made proposal to her to make friendship with him and when she refused, he threatened to kill her. Prosecutrix further deposed before the Court that thereafter she was pushed by the accused and he did not allow her to go outside the class and bolted the door from inside. Prosecutrix further stated that in this process, accused smashed a door pane, as a result of which, he sustained injury on his hand. Prosecutrix further stated that thereafter she reported the matter to PW -5, Sh. Ravi Kant, who lateron reported the matter to the police. 13. PW-3, Upasana, who as per statement of PW-2 was also sitting in the class room at that relevant time, deposed before the Court that on 12.3.2015 at 1:30/2:00 PM, she alongwith her other class mates, mostly females numbering about 20-25 was sitting inside the class room. It has also come in her statement that thereafter prosecutrix came inside and in the meanwhile, she heard the sound of pane-smashing and then all of them got frightened. PW-3, further deposed before the court that she saw accused bolting the door from inside and she also saw the prosecutrix running towards the door. As per version put forth by this witness she unbolted the door and ran outside the room. PW-3, further deposed before the court that she saw accused bolting the door from inside and she also saw the prosecutrix running towards the door. As per version put forth by this witness she unbolted the door and ran outside the room. PW-3, further stated that thereafter she called PW-5, Sh. Ravi Kant, who tried to apprehend the accused, but accused succeeded in fleeing therefrom and thereafter police was called. If the statements having been made by aforesaid witnesses are read in conjunction, it certainly compels this court to agree with the arguments having been made by Mr. Kanwar, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused that no reliance, if any, could be placed by the court below on the version put forth by these prosecution witness being contradictory in nature. Both the aforesaid material prosecution witnesses gave altogether different version with regard to entry, if any, made by the respondent-accused in the class room. As per PW-2, when accused entered in the class room, PW-3 namely Upasana was also sitting with her. It has come in the statement of PW-2 that at that time one of her male class mate was also inside the class room, whereas PW-3, Kumari Upasana stated that at about 1:30 PM when she alongwith other class mates mostly females numbering 20-25 was sitting inside the class room, prosecutrix came inside and then she heard the sound of pane smashing and then all of them got frightened. 14. Similarly, there is contradiction with regard to unbolting of the door, which was allegedly bolted by the accused. It has come in the statement of PW-2 that she unbolted the door and thereafter she ran outside the class room and reported the matter to PW-5, Sh. Ravi Kant, whereas PW-3 deposed before the Court that she saw the accused bolting the door from inside and saw the prosecutrix running towards the door. Most importantly, this witness stated before the court that she unbolted the door and ran outside the room and thereafter accused caught hold of her and asked her to call the prosecutrix. There are material contradictions in the statements of these prosecution witnesses. As per statement of PW-2, accused caught hold of her i.e. PW-3 by her hand, whereas PW-3 stated that prosecutrix ran towards the door and then accused caught hold of her by her hand and asked her to call the prosecutrix. There are material contradictions in the statements of these prosecution witnesses. As per statement of PW-2, accused caught hold of her i.e. PW-3 by her hand, whereas PW-3 stated that prosecutrix ran towards the door and then accused caught hold of her by her hand and asked her to call the prosecutrix. Interestingly, there is no mention, if any, in the complaint as well as FIR lodged at the behest of the prosecutrix with regard to indecent behaviour and eve teasing, if any, by the accused to PW-3, Upasana. Rather, statement of PW-3 suggests that alleged incident of indecent behaviour and eve teasing, if any, occurred at the relevant date was against PW-3,namely Upasana, who in her statement categorically stated that she was caught hold by her hand by the accused, who asked her to call the prosecutrix. 15. Leaving everything aside, there is nothing in the statement of PW-3, from where it can be inferred that she saw the accused catching hold of prosecutrix. Apart from above, there is another material contradiction in the statement of these prosecution witnesses with regard to reporting the matter to PW-5, Sh. Ravi Kant. PW-2 stated that she reported the matter to Ravi Kant and thereafter he had reported the matter to the police, whereas it has come in the statement of PW-3 that she after getting herself rescued from the clutches of accused ran out from there and called PW-5 Sh. Ravi Kant, who tried to apprehend the accused. 16. This Court after having carefully perused the statements of these prosecution witnesses, who could be termed as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court because it nowhere emerge from the record that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW-5, Sh. Ravi Kant, though corroborated the version put forth by PW-2 and PW-3 with regard to alleged incident on 12.3.2015,but stated that he was sitting in his office room and in the meantime, he heard pane smashing from adjacent class room and having heard it, he went there and saw the accused forcibly catching hold of the prosecutrix by her hand. It has also come in his statement that at the relevant time, PW-3, Upasana was also there. It has also come in his statement that at the relevant time, PW-3, Upasana was also there. He further stated that he questioned the accused with respect to his conduct in catching the prosecutrix by her hand, but apprehending some mischief from the accused, he called ministerial staff and thereafter 3-4 professors also joined him and when they came there, accused was catching hold of the prosecutrix by her hand. He further stated that thereafter matter was reported to the police and police came to the college. 17. If the statement of PW-5 is read juxtaposing statement of aforesaid prosecution witnesses PW-2 and 3, it creates doubt about the story put forth by the prosecution with regard to alleged incident because as per PW-2 and PW- 3, PW-5 came on the spot after having been informed by them. As per statement of PW-5, he having heard pane smashing sound coming from the adjacent class room went to the class room and saw accused forcibly catching hold of prosecutrix by her hand. PW-3 in her statement stated that at the relevant time there were 20-25 students sitting in the class, but interestingly neither PW-2 nor PW-5 stated anything specific with regard to presence of other students in the class room at the relevant time. It also emerge from the statements of these witnesses that accused had allegedly broken a door pane and on account thereof, he had sustained a bleeding injury on his hand, but interestingly, there is no MLC placed on record suggestive of the fact that accused had actually suffered injury in the alleged incident. Moreover, broken pieces of glass of door pane, which was allegedly broken by the accused were not taken into custody to prove pan smashing, if any, by the accused. 18. PW-7, HC Dalip Singh, Investigating Officer, while stating that he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/A and also clicked photographs Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/C categorically admitted that broken pieces of glass of door pane were not taken into custody. Interestingly, nothing has been depicted in the site Plan as well as photographs, from where it can be inferred that door pane was broken in the alleged incident by the accused. In his cross-examination PW-7 stated that he had got the accused medically examined and obtained MLC, but as has been observed above, there is no mention of injury on the hand of the accused. 19. In his cross-examination PW-7 stated that he had got the accused medically examined and obtained MLC, but as has been observed above, there is no mention of injury on the hand of the accused. 19. Prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate stated that accused had been harassing her by making telephonic calls on her mobile phone, but interestingly while deposing as PW- 2, she nowhere stated/ mentioned previous harassment, if any, allegedly by the accused. In her cross-examination, she stated that fortnight prior to 12.3.2015, accused started making telephonic calls to her on her mobile phone, but no record, if any, of telephonic calls is placed on record by the prosecution to prove aforesaid allegations leveled by the prosecutrix. Similarly, there is contradiction in the statements of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 with regard to lodging of the report to the police. As per PW-2, she at first instance reported the matter to PW-5, who further reported the matter to police. But unfortunately, there is no report available on record suggestive of the fact that action, if any, was taken by the police on the report, if any, filed by the college authorities. It is undisputed that FIR in the instant case came to be lodged on the next date of incident that too by the prosecutrix, who was accompanied by her father PW-4. 20. After having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to differ with the findings returned by the learned trial court because there is no consistency, if any, in the statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses which could persuade the learned court below as well as this court to hold respondent-accused guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of POCSO Act. 21. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 22. 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 respondent accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the respondent-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. 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.” 23. Reliance is also placed on judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 418, relevant para whereof is being reproduced herein below:- “11. 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.” 23. Reliance is also placed on judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 418, relevant para whereof is being reproduced herein below:- “11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. [Vide Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 ; Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ; Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 242 ].” 24. 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. 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. 25. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon’ Apex Court, this court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, which appears to be based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record and as such same is upheld. Accordingly, leave to appeal is rejected.