JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Since in all the aforesaid criminal appeals, challenge has been laid to common judgment dated 25.2.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 17-S/7 of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2007, as such, they are being taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Instant criminal appeals filed under Section 374 of the Cr.PC, are directed against the judgment/order of conviction dated 25.2.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 17-S/7 of 2007, whereby the learned court below while holding appellant(s)-accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 353/34, 332/34, 333/34 and 506 (II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, convicted and sentenced them to undergo as under:- “Section 333/34 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In case of default, payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year more. Section 353/34, 332/34 and 506 (II)/34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. For want of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.” 3. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that on 3rd July, 2006, at 9:00pm, police of police station Dhalli, received a telephonic message from the Police Assistance Room, The Mall, Shimla, that the window panes of Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) bus No. HP-25-7507, of Reckong Peo Depot, have been broken at Kufri, as a result of which, driver of the said bus has received injuries. On the basis of aforesaid information, rapat No. 31, came to be entered in Dhalli Police Station (Ext.PW11/A), and ASI Sato Kumar, the then Investigating Officer, along with staff proceeded to the spot and recorded statement of the complainant namely Ramji Dass, who in his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.PC stated that he is employed as driver in the HRTC Recong Peo Depot and his duty is to drive the night bus en-route Hamirpur to Kaza. The aforesaid complainant alleged that on 3.7.2006, he was on the wheels of the bus which was bound for Kaza. He left Shimla main bus stand at 8 pm and Shri Khojeshwar Singh was deputed as a conductor with him. As per the complainant, around 8:40 pm, when bus reached Kufri, he stopped the bus to alight the passengers, when the complainant was about to move the bus, three persons stood in front of the bus and one of those persons was brother of Shri Dinesh, who is/was also serving HRTC Recong Peo and whom he /complainant recognizes. The complainant further stated in the complaint that he does not know the name of the brother of Shri Dinesh Kumar (person named above), who threw a beer bottle on the front driver side wind screen of the bus, whereas second person pelted a stone on the front wind screen of the conductor side, which developed cracks. Complainant further stated in the complaint that another person carrying a beer bottle was standing near his window and who later on struck the bottle against the driver’s window, as a result of which, the glass was broken. He further stated in the complaint that the pieces of the broken glass hit his face and in the meanwhile, brother of Sh. Dinesh Kumar came towards the driver window and opened the same and started pulling him out of the bus. Companion of the aforesaid person gave blow with the stone on the person of the complainant, as a result of which, he sustained injury on his right ankle. The complainant further reported that he saved himself from the clutches of the accused with great difficulty and fled away along with bus towards Galu side. The complainant specifically reported in the complaint that when he was being beaten and beer bottles and stones were thrown on the bus, brother of Dinesh Kumar was saying that he (complainant) had made to disembark his brother (Dinesh Kumar) from the bus. In the complaint, the complainant specifically stated that he does not know the names of the assailants but recognizes them, who abused and threatened to kill him. Complainant further stated that when he moved the bus in the forward direction, all the wrong doers pelted the stones due to which, one of the window panes in the middle of the bus also gave a way. Complainant further stated that when he moved the bus in the forward direction, all the wrong doers pelted the stones due to which, one of the window panes in the middle of the bus also gave a way. He, the complainant parked the bus at some distance towards Galu. The accused followed the bus and then went away after threatening him. The complainant suffered injuries on his lip, lower jaw, right eye and ankle etc. because of the beatings administered to him by the accused. The complainant specifically complained in the complaint that brother of Sh. Dinesh Kumar and his associates obstructed him when he was discharging his official duties and also inflicted the injuries. Complainant further alleged that the accused damaged the public property by breaking the windscreen etc., and as such, action be taken and the culprits be brought to book. Police after completion of investigation of the case, presented challan before the competent court of law. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Shimla H.P., on being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the accused, charged the accused under Sections 353/34, 332/34, 333/34 and 506 (II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, the learned Court below on the basis of material adduced on record, held the appellants- accused guilty of the offences and convicted them as per description given herein above. In the aforesaid background, present criminal appeal(s) has/have been filed by the appellants-accused seeking therein their acquittal after setting aside judgment(s) of conviction recorded by the court below. 5. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, vehemently contended that the impugned judgment(s) of conviction passed by the learned court below is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. While referring to the impugned judgment of conviction, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, vehemently contended that the impugned judgment(s) of conviction passed by the learned court below is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. While referring to the impugned judgment of conviction, Mr. Vaidya, contended that bare perusal of the same suggests that evidence led on record by the respective parties, has not been read in its right perspective, as a result of which erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of the appellant accused, who are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Vaidya made this Court to travel through the statement of PW1 i.e. complainant, PW2 Conductor of the bus and PW3, Shri Darshan Kumar (one of the passengers) to demonstrate that there is no consistency in their statements and as such, no reliance, if any could be placed by the Court below on their versions while holding the accused guilty of having committed offence under the aforesaid sections. While referring to the statement of PWs, Mr. Vaidya, contended that bare perusal of the statements made before the court below suggests that they have altogether given different versions in the court with regard to alleged incident. Mr. Vaidya contended that since the complainant did not support the prosecution version in toto, he was declared hostile but bare perusal of cross examination conducted upon this witness by the learned public prosecutor itself suggests that no reliance, if any, could be placed by the court below on his statement while holding accused guilty of having committed offence. 6. While referring to the submissions of PW2 and 3 , learned counsel contended that it clearly emerge from their statements that no proceedings were recorded by the police at the spot of alleged occurrence, immediately after the alleged incident, rather, statements of witnesses came to be recorded on subsequent dates that too at police station. Mr. Vaidya, contended that it has specifically come in the statement of PW2 that he did not know the names of the accused and for the first time, he came to know about their names on 7.7.2007, when the statement was recorded in the Police Station. Mr. Vaidya, contended that it has specifically come in the statement of PW2 that he did not know the names of the accused and for the first time, he came to know about their names on 7.7.2007, when the statement was recorded in the Police Station. Learned senior counsel while inviting attention of this court to the statement of PW3, Shri Darshan Kumar, who is/was one of the passenger of the bus, stated that as per his own statement, he immediately left for Recong Peo in another bus sent by the HRTC and as such, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to record his statement on the spot. It has come in the statement of all the aforesaid witnesses that it takes 40-45 minutes to reach Kufri from Dhalli, where the alleged incident took place at 9pm and police reached at stop at around 10 pm as admitted by the official witnesses. While referring to the statements of PW10 Pawan Kumar and PW11 ASI Sato Kumar, learned senior counsel contended that it clearly emerges from the statements made by these official witnesses that FIR came to be lodged on 4th July, 2006, i.e. one day after the alleged incident and spot map as well as photographs were prepared/clicked on 4th July, and as such, it is not understood how statement of PW3 could be recorded on 3rd July, who admittedly after 15-20 minutes of the alleged incident left for Recong Peo in another bus sent by the HRTC. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Vaidya, contended that in the teeth of the material contradictions in the statements of these so called eye witnesses (PWs 1 to 3), no conviction could be recorded against the accused, who in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, specifically stated that they were standing in Kufri Bazar and complainant spotting them tried to crush them underneath the bus and in that process, he struck the bus against the wall, as a result of which the bus got damaged and the complainant suffered injury. All the accused categorically stated that complainant is a man of criminal instinct and he is inimical towards them. Mr. All the accused categorically stated that complainant is a man of criminal instinct and he is inimical towards them. Mr. Vaidya while referring to the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.PC submitted that bare perusal of the averments contained in the statement suggests that there was a prior animosity of the complainant with one Shri Dinesh Kumar, who happened to be brother of the accused Rajinder Singh alias Raju. With the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Vaidya, contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, conviction recorded against the accused deserves to be quashed and set- aside and accused persons be acquitted of the charges framed against them after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded against them. 7. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent–State, supported the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below. He while refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned senior counsel representing the appellants/accused, strenuously argued that bare perusal of impugned judgment suggests that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same as the impugned judgment is based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and the same deserves to be upheld. While inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment of conviction, learned Additional Advocate General, contended that court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, of this Court, especially, in view of the fact that material prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that appellants-accused gave beatings to the complainant on the relevant date and caused damage to the public property and also obstructed the complainant from discharging his official duty. While refuting the aforesaid submissions with regard to the contradictions in the statements of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, Mr. Chauhan, contended that if statements made by these aforesaid witnesses are read in its entirety, it certainly proves beyond reasonable doubt that at that relevant time, the accused forcefully stopped the bus being driven by the complainant and thereafter gave beatings to the driver/complainant, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan, contended that if statements made by these aforesaid witnesses are read in its entirety, it certainly proves beyond reasonable doubt that at that relevant time, the accused forcefully stopped the bus being driven by the complainant and thereafter gave beatings to the driver/complainant, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan, contended that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, no leniency, if any, could be shown to the accused at this stage, rather, they need to be dealt with severely for their alleged act. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 9. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse statements of prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, perusal whereof certainly suggests that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in their right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record. 10. In the instant case, prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses but only PWs 1, 2 and 3, can be termed as spot witnesses, who had an occasion to see the alleged incident with their own eyes. The appellants accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and contended that the complainant is a man of criminal instinct and he is inimical towards them. The accused further stated that at that relevant time, they were standing in Kufri Bazar and complainant spotting them tried to crush them underneath his bus and in that process, he struck the bus against the wall, as a result of which, wind screen etc., were got damaged and complainant sustained injuries. 11. After having carefully perused the statements made by the PWs, this Court finds that depositions made by the PWs 1 to 3 are relevant for determining whether complainant was given beatings or not. Apart from above, statements of these three witnesses (PW10 and 11 ) are also relevant. It is undisputed that PW-1 complainant did not support the case of the prosecution in toto, as a consequence of which, he was declared hostile. Apart from above, statements of these three witnesses (PW10 and 11 ) are also relevant. It is undisputed that PW-1 complainant did not support the case of the prosecution in toto, as a consequence of which, he was declared hostile. Even cross-examination conducted on this witness by the defence counsel clearly suggests that the complainant did not disclose the true facts to the court below while making his statement, which if read juxtaposing his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.PC, it certainly compels this Court to agree with the contentions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants-accused as well as defence taken by the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC that there was a prior animosity of the complainant with one Shri Dinesh Kumar, who happened to be the brother of the accused Rajinder Singh alias Raju. It clearly emerge from the statement of PW1 that he took altogether contrary stand to what he initially stated to police while getting his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.PC. Even cross-examination conducted on this witness clearly suggests that accused namely Raju, was of his acquaintance and at one point of time, he had compelled the accused Raju to dis-embark from his bus near Hasan Valley. When aforesaid witness was confronted with his statement Ext.PA, where it was recorded that he had forced the accused Raju to disembark near Hassan Valley, he stated that accused Rajinder was saying as to why PW1 complainant forced him to get down from the bus. Similarly, in cross-examination conducted by the defence counsel, complainant PW1 stated that he is not aware of the fact that Dinesh Kumar is posted at Recong Peo and he never told the police that he recognizes one of the accused as he was brother of the Dinesh Kumar. Similarly, he refuted that accused used to travel in the bus frequently to meet his brother at Recong Peo and he had met the accused several times in the office. Most importantly, the court below failed to take note of the candid statements/admission having been made by PW1 and PW2 that accused Raju had alighted from the bus before Kufri i.e. the place of occurrence. Most importantly, the court below failed to take note of the candid statements/admission having been made by PW1 and PW2 that accused Raju had alighted from the bus before Kufri i.e. the place of occurrence. It is own case of the prosecution that alleged incident occurred at Kufri Bazar, as per statement of PW1, when he was all set to leave Kufri after making passengers alight from the bus, few boys suddenly appeared in front of the bus carrying beer bottles and stones in their hands. It is not understood that when accused had alighted from the bus before Kufri as is stated by PW1 and PW2 in their cross-examination, how he could reach Kufri bus stop ahead of the bus and cause obstruction as alleged by the prosecution. The aforesaid candid admission having been made by PWs 1 and 2 certainly creates doubt with regard to the genuineness and correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution. 12. PW2, Conductor of the bus corroborated the story of the prosecution that on the alleged date of incident, accused stopped the bus in question at Kufri and pelted beer bottles and stones on the wind screen of the bus, as a result of which, PW1 (complainant) suffered injuries on his face and ankle. But if statement of this witness is read in its entirety, it also creates doubt with regard to the correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution. This witness categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he knows Dinesh Kumar brother of the accused. He admitted in his cross-examination that Dinesh Kumar worked in HRTC at Recong Peo. Though he stated that he did not know that Raju is a brother of the Dinesh but he nowhere specifically named accused, especially, Raju in his statement while deposing that bus in question was obstructed by the accused at Kufri. PW2 in his crossexamination admitted/stated that police remained at spot for 45 minutes. This witnesses further stated that police only took into possession stones and thereafter, took injured to the hospital and apart from this, did nothing on the spot at that time. PW2 also admitted in his cross-examination that he intimated the Regional Manager, HRTC, Recong Peo about the alleged incident, who later on contacted the control room to send another bus for carrying passengers to Recong Peo. PW2 also admitted in his cross-examination that he intimated the Regional Manager, HRTC, Recong Peo about the alleged incident, who later on contacted the control room to send another bus for carrying passengers to Recong Peo. It has also come in his statement that during night, none of the passengers stayed with him in the bus. He along with one HC stayed in bus, whereas all other passengers went to Recong Peo in another bus. He specifically stated that he visited the Police Station on 4.7.2006, at Dhali. While denying that police did not conduct any proceedings at the spot on 3.7.2006, he specifically stated that police got photographs clicked on 4.7.2006, at 9 am. He also stated that it is wrong to suggest that bus was parked half a K.M. away from Kufri at Galu. Most importantly, this witness in his cross-examination stated that he inquired about the names of the accused in Police Station on 7.7.2006, when his statement was recorded. It clearly emerge from the statement having been made by this witness that after alleged incident, another bus was provided by the HRTC and all the passengers were sent to the Recong Peo in that bus. It also emerge from his statement that police did not record the statements of any of the witnesses in the night of 3.7.2006 and on that date, it only took into custody stones allegedly used by the accused for breaking wind screen of the bus. Similarly, it also emerges from the statement of this witness that names of accused were not known to him, rather he came to know about the names of the accused on 7.7.2006, in the Police Station. 13. Another so called spot witnesses PW3, though stated that he was travelling in bus bearing No. HP 25 7507 on 3.7.2006, but his presence is also doubtful for a simple reason that no attempt, whatsoever, was made by the prosecution to place on record traveling ticket possessed by this witness at that relevant time. 14. In normal circumstances, this Court would have lent some credence to the version put forth by this prosecution witness but in view of the specific statement given by PW2 that all the passengers left the spot of occurrence after some time in another bus provided by the HRTC, no much importance can be given to the version of this witness i.e. PW3. PW3 himself stated that he remained at spot of occurrence only for 10-15 minutes. Once as per the own admission of this witness (PW3), he remained at spot for 10-15 minutes, It is not understood that how PW11 i.e. Investigating Officer, could record his statement, who himself reached the spot after 40-45 minutes of the alleged incident. 15. Apart from above, it has specifically come in the statement of PW2 that no statement was recorded on 3.7.2006, by the police. Though, it has come in the statement of PW3 that his statement was recorded by the police, but this version put forth by PW3 appears to be false in the wake of specific statements given by PWs 1, 2 and 10, who have categorically admitted that on 3.7.2006, nothing was done at the spot, save and except, recovery of stones as well as broken pieces of bottles, allegedly used by the accused. It also emerge from the statement of PW3 that he was not able to recognize any of the accused because it has come in his statement that at that relevant time, the assailants were calling the name of the accused “ Raju Raju Raju Raju” 16. This witness (PW3) has also admitted in his cross-examination that it takes 30-45 minutes to reach Kufri from Shimla and police reached the spot after half an hour of the alleged incident. In one breath, this witness stated that he remained present at the spot for 10-15 minutes and in another breath, he stated that he remained with police for almost one hour and thereafter he started his journey at around 11:30 pm. Aforesaid version put forth by this witness is totally contrary to the stand taken by the PW1, 2, 10 and 11, wherein they admittedly stated that police after reaching spot of occurrence, took PW1 (complainant) to the hospital and further proceedings were conducted on spot on 4.7.2016, in the morning. 17. This court after having carefully perused the statement of this material prosecution witnesses, who were allegedly present at the time of alleged incident, sees substantial force in the argument of the Mr. Vaidya, that no reliance, if any, could be placed by the court below on their statements while holding accused guilty of having committed offence under the sections, especially, in the teeth of material contradictions in the statements of these prosecution witnesses. Vaidya, that no reliance, if any, could be placed by the court below on their statements while holding accused guilty of having committed offence under the sections, especially, in the teeth of material contradictions in the statements of these prosecution witnesses. Version put forth by these witnesses, cannot be termed to be sufficient, cogent much less convincing for holding the accused guilty. 18. At this stage, this Court deems it fit to take note of the statement of PW10 Pawan Kumar, who visited the spot of incident on 3.7.2006, with ASI Sato Kumar. He specifically stated that he returned to the Police Station after completion of proceedings at spot and thereafter, visited spot on the next day. He specifically stated that on the date of alleged incident, statement of the complainant (PW1) was recorded and he was got medically examined and thereafter, nothing happened. He also denied that when he reached spot on 3.7.2006, bus was parked hundred meters ahead of Kufri at Galu. He specifically stated that bus was parked at Kufri Bazar and from that point, Kufri Bazar was visible. 19. It clearly emerge from the statement of this witness that no statement was recorded by the investigating officer at spot on 3.7.2006, and on that day, complainant was sent for medical examination. Similarly, version put forth by this witness belies the version putforth by PWs1 and 2 that bus was parked hundred meters ahead of Kufri at Galu after the alleged incident. 20. PW11 in his statement stated that he recorded statement of PW1 under Section 154 of the Cr.PC (Ext.PW9/A) and took him to IGMC hospital, for medical examination. He further stated that he recorded the statement of passengers, but definitely there is no mention, if any, of time/day, at/on which he recorded statement of passengers travelling in the bus. Otherwise also, it is undisputed that only one passenger namely Darshan (PW3) came to be cited as prosecution witnesses. PW11 also stated that he left place of the alleged incident after leaving bus in custody of conductor i.e. PW2 and one Home Guard. He further stated that he again visited the spot of incident along with Ram ji Das i.e. complainant on the next date and got photographs (Ext.11E to F), clicked. In his cross-examination, this prosecution witness stated that he recorded the statement of passengers and thereafter, he came back to the Police Station. He further stated that he again visited the spot of incident along with Ram ji Das i.e. complainant on the next date and got photographs (Ext.11E to F), clicked. In his cross-examination, this prosecution witness stated that he recorded the statement of passengers and thereafter, he came back to the Police Station. He specifically admitted in his cross-examination that by the time, he reached the Police Station, FIR was already lodged. He also stated that when on 4.7.2006, he visited the spot, none of the passengers was present. He also admitted that statement, if any, under Section 161 of the Cr.PC, is recorded after lodging of FIR. This witness specifically admitted in cross-examination that statements of passengers were recorded by him under Section 161 of the Cr.PC and thereafter, he came to Police Station. This witness also admitted in his cross examination that none of the independent witness was associated from the spot. Similarly, this witness stated that home guard remained with bus on the date of alleged incident alongwith conductor, but he did not record his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. If statements of PW10 and 11 are read in its entirety, it certainly create doubt with regard to proceedings, if any, conducted by the ASI Sato Kumar at the spot of occurrence on 3.7.2006. PW11 specifically admitted in his crossexamination that by the time he reached Police Station at Dhali, FIR was registered. It is not understood that how statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC could be recorded by the ASI Sato Kumar (PW11) before lodging of FIR. There is nothing on record that intimation, if any, was given to ASI Sato Kumar by the officials of Thana at Dhalli, with regard to lodging of FIR. Leaving everything aside, it clearly emerge from the statements of PW 2 and 10 that no statement was recorded by the ASI Sato Kumar (PW11) on 3.7.2006, and as such, version put forth by the PW11 appears to be totally false and untrustworthy. It is PW11, who has categorically admitted that on 4.7.2006, none of the passenger was present on the spot when he visited the spot of occurrence along with complainant Ramji Dass. Version put forth by PW2 clearly belies the stand taken by PW3 that his statement was recorded by the police authorities on 3.7.2006 at the spot of occurrence. It is PW11, who has categorically admitted that on 4.7.2006, none of the passenger was present on the spot when he visited the spot of occurrence along with complainant Ramji Dass. Version put forth by PW2 clearly belies the stand taken by PW3 that his statement was recorded by the police authorities on 3.7.2006 at the spot of occurrence. Since, it stood duly proved on record with the statements of PW2 and 10 that no statements were recorded on 3.7.2006 at the post of occurrence, version put forth by the PW3 could not be relied upon by the court below. 21. This Court after having carefully perused the statement of aforesaid prosecution witness has no hesitation to conclude that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the statements of aforesaid witnesses in the wake of material contradictions in their statements. 22. 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. Reliance is also placed on Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and Ors. v. 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 emphasise, 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 Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14) "14. Needless to emphasise, 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 Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., 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 situations 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 consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses.” 23. True it is that perusal of medical examination adduced on record by the prosecution suggests that the complainant suffered grievous injuries in the alleged incident but same may not be sufficient to hold the appellants-accused guilty of having committed offences. In the instant case, prosecution has not been able to connect accused with the alleged incident to prove the case against the appellants-accused under Sections 353/34, 332/34, 333/34 and 506 (II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 3.7.2006, the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed mischief by pelting beer bottles and stones on the wind screen of the bus in question and caused injury to the complainant, while he was discharging his lawful duty as a public servant. 24. Similarly, this Court finds that no evidence was led on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that complainant (PW1) was prevented by the accused from discharging his lawful duties. None of the prosecution witnesses specifically stated that the accused prevented the complainant from discharging his lawful duty. 24. Similarly, this Court finds that no evidence was led on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that complainant (PW1) was prevented by the accused from discharging his lawful duties. None of the prosecution witnesses specifically stated that the accused prevented the complainant from discharging his lawful duty. Similarly as has been discussed above, prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily caused grievous and simple injuries on the person of the complainant with an intention to prevent/deter him from discharging his duties on the date of incident. Version put forth by the PW1 could not be placed reliance upon in view of the total contradictory stand taken by him while deposing before the Court. Similarly, no much reliance could be placed on the statement of PW2 conductor, in view of the material contradictions in his statement with regard to the identity of the accused persons as well as recording of statements by PW11, version putforth by the sole independent witness (PW3) associated by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, is also not worth lending any credence in view of the contrary stand taken by PWs 1, 2, 10 and 11 with regard to the presence of this witness (PW3) at the time of alleged incident, especially, at the time of recording his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC, by the Investigating Officer. Most importantly, as has been taken note above, no attempt was ever made by the Investigating Agency to place on record travelling ticket of this witness (PW3) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was traveling in the bus in question at that relevant time. 25. True it is that presence of all the accused at the spot stands admitted by the defence but if defence taken under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, is read/examined, carefully juxtaposing statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses, it certainly indicates towards the prior acquaintance of PW1 i.e. complainant and his animosity with one Shri Dinesh Kumar, who happened to be brother of the accused namely Rajinder Kumar alias Raju. Had court below cared to examine/analyze statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC in light of the initial complaint made under Section 154 of the Cr.PC., by the complainant and subsequent deposition made before the Court, it would have definitely reached at some other conclusion. 26. Had court below cared to examine/analyze statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC in light of the initial complaint made under Section 154 of the Cr.PC., by the complainant and subsequent deposition made before the Court, it would have definitely reached at some other conclusion. 26. It is well settled that guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in this regard, burdon of proving case beyond reasonable doubt always lies on the prosecution and never shifts. 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 ].” 27. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion as well as law referred herein above, instant appeals are allowed and judgment passed by the Court below is quashed and set-aside. Accordingly, appellants-accused are acquitted of the charges so framed against them. Bail bonds discharged. Interim order, if any, vacated. All applications, if any, also stand disposed of.