JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 CrPC is directed against impugned judgment of acquittal dated 8.5.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No.3, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No. 79-II-07, whereby respondent-accused, came to be acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from record are that complainant namely Taro Devi, PW-3, got her statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC, Ext. PW-5/A, on the basis of which, formal FIR No. 190/07 dated 4.6.2007, came to be registered, alleging therein that on 22.4.2007, at around 2.50 pm, at Village Jhalera, District Una, accused gave beatings to her as well as PW-4 Raj Kumar, by way of fist blows, as a result of which Taro Devi PW-3 sustained injuries on her face, which were termed to be simple as well as grievous in nature, vide MLC Ext. PW-2/A and PW-1/A. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law. Learned trial Court, being satisfied that prima facie case exists against respondent-accused, framed charges under aforesaid sections, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution in toto, however, the fact remains that he did not lead any evidence in his defence. Learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 8.5.2009, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. In the aforesaid background, respondent State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, court No.3, Una, has approached this Court, by way of instant proceeding praying therein for conviction of accused, after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below. 3. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below, vehemently argued that same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Mr. 3. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below, vehemently argued that same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Mr. Chauhan, while inviting attention of this Court to impugned judgment contended that bare perusal of same suggests that the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution in its right perspective, as a result of which erroneous findings have come on record and accused has been let off on very flimsy grounds. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Chauhan, made this Court to travel through evidence led on record by prosecution to suggest that all the material prosecution witnesses categorically deposed before the Court below that the victims namely Taro Devi PW-3 and Raj Kumar, PW-4, were given beatings by the accused and in this incident, PW-3 Taro Devi sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan, contended that since case was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to acquit the accused, by extending benefit of doubt. 4. Mr. Sunny Modgil, learned counsel representing the accused while refuting aforesaid submissions having been made by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, invited attention of this Court to the statements made by PW-3 and PW-4, to suggest that no reliance, if any, could be placed on their version, by the learned Court below, while examining correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution because of material contradictions in their statements. Mr. Modgil, further contended that apart from statements having been made by PW-3 and PW-4, who are admittedly related to each other, no independent witness was associated by the prosecution, to prove its case and as such there is on illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Court below, which otherwise is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. While hearing submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties, this Court had an occasion to go through the judgment passed by learned Court below, vis-à-vis evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, perusal whereof certainly does not suggest that the learned Court below has misread, misinterpreted or mis-construed evidence led on record by the prosecution, rather, this Court, after having carefully perused entire evidence led on record, by prosecution has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such, there is no reason for this Court to disagree with the findings returned by the trial Court. Though, in the instant case, prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses but perusal of the record suggests that only statements of three witnesses are material to ascertain whether accused gave beatings to PW-3 and PW-4 on 22.4.20107. At this stage, it may be noticed that PW-3 Taro Devi and PW-4 Raj Kumar, are closely related to each other, being mother and son. Apart from the statements having been made by the aforesaid witnesses, there is no independent witness associated on record by the prosecution to support the prosecution story. PW-3, while proving case of the prosecution, reiterated that accused gave beatings to her and her son Raj Kumar. But, interestingly, altogether new story with regard to lifting of cycle by accused, came to be introduced by the prosecution during examination of these witnesses. In her statement before the court, she stated that accused came to the adjoining shop and started lifting cycle, to which PW-4 Raj Kumar objected and claimed that the cycle was his and he was stealing it. Accused started giving beatings to Raj Kumar. She further stated that she rushed out thereafter and asked accused as to why he was beating Raj Kumar but accused also started giving beatings to her. Interestingly, in the cross-examination, this witnesses admitted that she had informed entire incident with regard to lifting of cycle by accused to the police, but there is nothing as such in the statement given under Section 154 CrPC, to the police by this witness. 7. Interestingly, in the cross-examination, this witnesses admitted that she had informed entire incident with regard to lifting of cycle by accused to the police, but there is nothing as such in the statement given under Section 154 CrPC, to the police by this witness. 7. Similarly, it has come in the cross-examination of PW-3 that when she was trying to rescue PW-4 from the clutches of accused, she fell down. In cross-examination, she feigned ignorance whether her son PW-4 Raj Kumar, received injuries, in the alleged incident or not? PW-4 Raj Kumar, also corroborated version put forth by PW-3 with regard to alleged beatings given by accused to him. He also, in his cross-examination claimed that he alongwith Taro Devi had gone to the police to get the complaint lodged. He also stated that the police after writing the report, read over the same to them and they put their signatures having accepted the same to be correct. He also contended that PW-3 Taro Devi had disclosed to the police that fighting started due to lifting of cycle, but, as has been noticed above, there is no mention as such in the Rapat, Ext. PW-5/A, which was initially, registered by the police at the behest of PW-3, with regard to lifting of cycle, if any, by the accused. 8. PW-5, Head Constable, Paramjit, who was Investigating Officer, while stating that he prepared spot map after visiting the spot, categorically admitted that PW-3 and PW-4 had stated that cycle was main cause of fight. But, in his cross-examination, he specifically admitted that he did not make attempt to inquire as to who was actual owner of the cycle. He also admitted that fight took place between accused and PW-3 Raj Kumar. He also admitted the suggestion put to him that during investigation, it emerged that PW-3 Taro Devi had entered fight at a later stage. 9. After having carefully perused statements made by these prosecution witnesses, it clearly emerges from record that the cause of dispute, if any, inter se parties was alleged lifting of cycle by accused. But, interestingly, in the instant case, there is no attempt, if any, on the part of the police to take into custody cycle, which was allegedly stolen by accused. PW-5 HHC Paramjit categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not inquire as to who was the actual owner of the cycle. But, interestingly, in the instant case, there is no attempt, if any, on the part of the police to take into custody cycle, which was allegedly stolen by accused. PW-5 HHC Paramjit categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not inquire as to who was the actual owner of the cycle. Similarly, there is no evidence led on record by the prosecution, from where it could be inferred, that who was real owner of cycle, which was alleged to be stolen by accused. Similarly, no definite opinion can be formed with regard to infliction of injuries on the body of the PW-3 Taro Devi because of alleged fist blows having been given by accused. It has specifically come in the statement of PW-3 Taro Devi that when she was trying to pull away Raj Kumar from the clutches of accused, she fell down and as such, possibility of Taro Devi having received injuries by way of falling on the ground, can not be ruled out. True it is, that it has come in the medical evidence led on record by prosecution that PW-3 Taro Devi received simple as well as grievous injuries, but same may not be sufficient to conclude that accused is guilty of having committed offence punishable under charged sections. 10. Since prosecution has not been able to connect accused beyond reasonable doubt, with commission of alleged offence, medical evidence, if any, led on record, may not be of any help to the prosecution. Otherwise also, it emerges from record that even there is conflicting opinion of doctors, qua the injuries allegedly received by Taro Devi in the alleged incident. As per PW-1 Dr. Yogeshwar Ravi, who issued MLC Ext. PW-1/A, Taro Devi received simple injuries, whereas Dr. Vipin Chaudhary, PW-2 termed injuries to be grievous. 11. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds from record that alleged incident admittedly occurred in the Bazaar, that too at 2.50 pm, meaning thereby that there were a number of people available, who could be associated by prosecution as independent witnesses to give strength to the story of prosecution. It has specifically come in the statement of PW-3 that she runs a tea stall in the shop owned by Ram Swaroop. It has specifically come in the statement of PW-3 that she runs a tea stall in the shop owned by Ram Swaroop. Similarly, it has come in the statement of prosecution witnesses that there were a number of shops, but, unfortunately, there appears to be no attempt on the part of prosecution to associate any independent witnesses. 12. True it is, that version put forth by interested witnesses can not be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are related to the complainant, but, it is well settled that version put forth by interested witnesses is required to be dealt with cautiously and carefully by the Courts, while ascertaining guilt, if any, of accused. In the instant case, there is no evidence, save and except that of PW-3 and PW-4, who are mother and son, to support the prosecution story. 13. Otherwise also, if statements having been made by these witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 are read in their entirety, it can be said that no reliance, if any could be placed upon their statements, for holding accused guilty of offence punishable under aforesaid sections, because of inconsistency in their statements. There is no consistency at all in the statements of these prosecution witnesses, as such learned trial Court has rightly ignored their version while acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him. 14. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and needs to be evaluated for its creditability. Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the well established principle that “no man is guilty until proved so”, utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on touchstone of consistency. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 645, wherein it has been held as under:- “45. 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. 15. After perusing the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well exhibits placed on record, two views are possible in the present case and as such, the petitioner-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the 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) Supreme Court 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. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- “6. So far as Hori Lal, PW-1 is concerned, he had been sent to fetch a basket from the village and it was only a matter of coincidence that while he was returning he witnessed the entire incident. The High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his testimony because he evidence clearly shows that he had an animus against the appellants. Moreover, his evidence was not corroborated by objective circumstances. Though it was his categorical case that all of them fired, no injury caused by rifle was found, and, only two wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Apart from this PW-3 did not mention the presence of either PW-1 or PW-2 at the time of occurrence. All these circumstances do create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The presence of these three witnesses becomes doubtful if their evidence is critically scrutinized. May be it is also possible to take a view in favour of the prosecution, but since the High Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a finding in favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred.” 16. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment reported in Pawan Kumar and Kamal Bhardwaj versus State of H.P., latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1150 has also concluded here-in-below:- “25. 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. The manner of the occurrence testified by PW-11 Sandeep Rana is not unnatural nor is it intrinsically untrue, therefore, it has to be believed. 27. Sandeep Rana could not be said to have been established, even if the prosecution version were taken on its face value. It was pleaded that no serious injury had been caused to PW-11 Sandeep Rana and that all the injuries, according to the testimony of PW-21 Dr. Raj Kumar, which he noticed on the person of Sandeep Rana, at the time of his medical examination, were simple in nature. 17. Evidence discussed herein above is sufficient to hold that in given facts and circumstances, two views are possible in the present case and as such present, accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the present case, prosecution story does not appear to be plausible/trustworthy and as such same cannot be relied upon. 18. Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court sees no reason to interfere with well reasoned judgment of learned trial Court, which otherwise appears to be based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by accused are cancelled. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.