JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant Criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 31.7.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.13-S/10 of 2008, reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.1.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat( Camp at Solan) in Criminal Case No.2/2 of 2007/2006, whereby learned trial court while holding respondent ( hereinafter referred to as the accused) guilty of having committing the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that complainant Smt. Vidya Devi (PW-1) lodged complaint at police Station, Solan alleging therein that on 1.4.2004 the accused, who was working as Teacher in Primary School, Brewery, District Solan indecently assaulted her daughter namely Hema (PW-2) studying in 4th class. As per the complainant, victim was called by the accused and thereafter was asked to sit on his lap and when she refused to do so, accused forcibly caught hold of her and placed his hand on her leg, whereas remaining students were asked to go outside the room. As per complainant, accused placed his hand inside the salwar of the victim, upon which victim started weeping. Thereafter, accused left her and called all the children inside the class. Aforesaid incident was brought to the notice of the complainant, who happened to be mother of the victim on the same day, but since her father was not at home complaint could not be made on the same day. The mother of victim revealed the matter to her brother namely Sh. Amarjit. Aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the management of the school by Sh. Amarjit. However, fact remains that FIR came to be registered only on 8.4.2004, whereby police registered the case against the accused under Section 354 of IPC. Police after completion of the investigation, presented the challan in the competent Court of law. 3. Amarjit. Aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the management of the school by Sh. Amarjit. However, fact remains that FIR came to be registered only on 8.4.2004, whereby police registered the case against the accused under Section 354 of IPC. Police after completion of the investigation, presented the challan in the competent Court of law. 3. The learned trial Court being satisfied that a prima-facie case exist against the accused, put notice of accusation to the accused under Section 354 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the case of the prosecution in toto. Accused termed allegations made against him to be false and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the management of the school, as he was having some altercation with the management on the issue of salary. The accused also led evidence in his defence. Learned trial Court on the basis of the material adduced before it by the prosecution, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as per the description already given hereinabove. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 8.1.2008, passed by the learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.13-S/10 of 2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan vide judgment dated 31.7.2008 set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and acquitted the accused of the notice of accusation put to him under Section 354 of IPC. In the aforesaid background, present appellant-State approached this Court by way of instant criminal appeal, praying therein for his conviction after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan. 6. Mr. M.L.Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the appellant-State, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment dated 31.7.2008, vehemently 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. 6. Mr. M.L.Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the appellant-State, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment dated 31.7.2008, vehemently 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 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan suggest that the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution was not read in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record and well reasoned judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court has been set-aside without any valid reason. 7. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Chauhan, made this Court to travel through the evidence led on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and as such, there was no scope left for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to differ with the findings returned by the learned trial Court. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that judgment passed by the learned trial court whereby respondent-accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC clearly suggest that each and every aspect of the matter was dealt with very meticulously and carefully by the learned trial Court and there was no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and as such, same was required to be upheld by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Solan. Mr. Chauhan, while inviting attention of this court to the statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses, contended that all the prosecution witnesses including the victim categorically stated before the court below that respondent-accused indulged in indecent behaviour and made an attempt to outrage the modesty of victim as well as other students. Mr. Chauhan, further stated that since prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court ought to have been upheld by the learned first appellate Court and as such, judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan deserve to be quashed and set-aside by this Court. 8. Mr. Mr. Chauhan, further stated that since prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court ought to have been upheld by the learned first appellate Court and as such, judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan deserve to be quashed and set-aside by this Court. 8. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused, while refuting the aforesaid submission having been made by learned Additional Advocate General, strenuously argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, rather perusal of the same suggest that same is based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, no interference whatsoever, of this court is called for. Mr. Thakur, while inviting attention of this Court to the statements having been made by the victim as well as other material prosecution witnesses, contended that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon their version, especially in view of the material contradictions in their statements with regard to date of alleged incident. While inviting attention of this Court to the statements of PW-1, Smt. Vidya Devi and PW-2, Hema, Mr. Thakur stated that as per these witnesses incident occurred on 1st April, 2004, whereas as per statements having been made by Himachali (PW-3) and Arjun (PW-4), who were allegedly present at the site of alleged incident, incident occurred on 5th April, 2004. While referring to the statements having been made by PW-1 and PW-2, learned counsel, further contended that it has specifically come in their statements that persons working in the management were directly related to victim as well as complainant and as such, no reliance, if any, could be placed upon their version, especially in view of the statement having been given by respondent-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 9. While inviting attention of this Court to the defence evidence led on record in support of the case of respondent-accused, Mr. Thakur, stated that all the defence witnesses unequivocally stated before the Court that character of the respondent-accused was above board during his service career and at no point of time complaint, if any, of this nature was ever received against the respondent-accused. Thakur, stated that all the defence witnesses unequivocally stated before the Court that character of the respondent-accused was above board during his service career and at no point of time complaint, if any, of this nature was ever received against the respondent-accused. While making this court to travel through the statements having been made by these defence witnesses, learned counsel also made an attempt to persuade this court to accept his contention that respondent-accused was falsely implicated in view of the old dispute inter se the respondent-accused and school management over the issue of salary. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Thakur, contended that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the statements of minor children, who admittedly made deposition before the Court at the behest of their parents or management of the school. With the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Thakur, prayed that present appeal be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 11. Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions having been made by learned counsel representing the parties, this Court deems it proper to deal with the aspect of delay in lodging of the FIR by the complainant. Admittedly, in the instant case, as per the version put forth by the complainant, she was narrated alleged incident on 1st April, 2004. It is also not in dispute that FIR came to be lodged on 8.4.2004 i.e. seven days of alleged incident. 12. This Court, after having carefully perused the version put forth by the material prosecution witnesses especially PW-1, Smt. Vidya Devi (complainant), sees substantial force in the arguments of learned counsel representing the respondent-accused that there is no explanation much less plausible rendered by the prosecution with regard to delay in lodging the FIR. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, accused outrage the modesty of the victim as well as other students inside the class room on 1.4.2004, whereas FIR that too at the behest of mother of the victim came to be lodged at police station, Solan on 8.4.2004. As per PW-1 since father of victim was out of station, she disclosed the aforesaid incident to her brother, who further brought it to the notice of the management. As per PW-1 since father of victim was out of station, she disclosed the aforesaid incident to her brother, who further brought it to the notice of the management. But if the statement having been made by PW-1, is read carefully and in its entirety, it clearly suggests that father of victim had come on the next date of incident i.e.2.4.2004 and there is no explanation rendered on record by the prosecution that what prevented father for almost six days to lodge FIR against the respondent-accused that too in such a serious crime allegedly committed by the respondent-accused. Even if the version put forth by PW-1 is accepted that since father of victim was not in station on the date of alleged incident, she had disclosed aforesaid incident to her brother Sh. Amarjit, who could always visit police station to lodge the FIR against the respondent-accused. As per PW-1, Amarjit brought the alleged incident to the notice of the management, but there is nothing on record from where it can be inferred that management lodged complaint/FIR, if any, against the respondent-accused after the alleged incident. Perusal of the record clearly suggests that FIR came to be registered on 8.4.2004 that too at the behest of the mother of victim PW-2, Hema. 13. Though, perusal of the record suggest that respondent-accused not only made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the victim, rather he made similar act of indecency with other students, but none of students made complaint to the police with regard to aforesaid alleged incident. This Court, after having carefully perused the material adduced on record by the prosecution, sees no illegality and infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, qua the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR. Since, there is no explanation rendered on record by the prosecution with regard to delay in lodging the FIR, no much reliance, could be placed on the story put forth by the prosecution. 14. At this stage, this Court deems it fit to take note of the defence taken by the respondent-accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he while denying the case of the prosecution in toto specifically stated that he has been falsely implicated by the management of the school as he had some dispute with the management qua the salary. Respondent-accused with a view to prove his stand as taken in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examined DW-1, Smt. Savita Chandel, HC Kishan Kumar DW-3, and Sh. Daya Kishan DW-4. All these aforesaid defence witnesses had been working with the accused during his service career. It is also admitted case of the parties that respondent-accused had been teaching/working in the school being managed by the private management for the last 34 years. All the aforesaid witnesses categorically stated that accused was having good conduct and nothing offending was ever reported against him by any of the students or the staff members. 15. True, it is that aforesaid defence witnesses were not present at the time of alleged incident, but if their statements are read in its entirety, it gives some strength to the statement/stand taken by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he had some dispute with the management over the issue of salary. It has also come in the statements of aforesaid defence witnesses that teachers including respondent-accused had dispute with the management over the issue of salary and some of the employees were rather asked/advised by the management to leave the institution. 16. DW-3, HC Kishan Kumar while producing rapat rojnamcha register of police Station, Solan categorically stated that rapat No.15 came to be registered at the behest of the respondent-accused, who reported that 2nd April, 2004 that he was given beating at 10:00 AM near Solan Brewery School gate. It also emerge from record that pursuant to aforesaid rapat, FIR came to be registered under Sections 341,323, 34 of IPC against Amarjit, Rajinder Kumar, Ved Prakash and Shiv Kumar, who allegedly gave beatings to the respondent-accused after obstructing his way. Perusal of Ex.DW5/A clearly suggest that pursuant to aforesaid FIR lodged at the behest of the respondent-accused case came to be registered against aforesaid persons under Sections 341, 323, 34 of IPC and persons named above, were taken into custody by the police. After having carefully perused the rapat rojnamcha, on the basis of which FIR Ex.DW5/A came to be registered, there appears to be some force in the arguments of Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused that FIR Ex. After having carefully perused the rapat rojnamcha, on the basis of which FIR Ex.DW5/A came to be registered, there appears to be some force in the arguments of Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused that FIR Ex. PA was counter blast to the FIR lodged by the respondent-accused, who admittedly had made a complaint against Amarjit, Ved Prakssh, Rajinder Kumar and Shiv Kumar on 2nd April, 2004. 17. True it is FIR Ex. DW5/A came to be registered on 8th April, 2004, but DW-3, HC Kishan Kumar has categorically stated that complaint with regard to beating allegedly given by the aforesaid persons came to be registered on 2nd April, 2004 at the behest of respondent-accused. It has specifically come in the statement of PW-1 that she at first instance disclosed alleged accident to her brother namely Amarjit, who further disclosed the same to the management. As has been observed above, there is no explanation, worth the name, on record that what prevented Amarjit to lodge FIR on the same day or day after, rather after having carefully perused Ex.DW5/A, this Court sees reasons to conclude that FIR lodged by complainant i.e. PW-1 was counter blast to the FIR lodged by respondent-accused. 18. While inviting attention of this Court to the cross-examination conducted upon PW-1 and PW-2, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused specifically pointed out that Amarjit, Ved Prakash, Rajinder Kumar and Shiv Kumar all were connected with the management in one way or other. As per own admission of PW-1, Amarjit who happened to be a part of the management is brother of complainant Smt. Vidya Devi. After having gone through the aforesaid aspect of the matter qua delay in lodging FIR, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court below failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter in the light of the defence taken by the respondent-accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record. 19. 19. While exploring answer to the correctness of the submissions having been made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court had an occasion to peruse the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to prove alleged incident, perusal whereof, certainly not compels this court to agree with the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that there has been misreading, misappreciation and misconstruction of evidence led on record by the prosecution, rather this court is compelled to observe that learned trial court while holding respondent-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section of 354 of IPC, swayed with the emotion and wrongly ignored the material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 20. Complainant Smt. Vidya Devi (PW-1) and victim Hema (PW-2) in their statements stated that alleged incident occurred on 1st April, 2004, whereas PW-3 and PW-4, who as per prosecution story were present at the site of occurrence, categorically deposed before the court below that incident occurred on 5th April, 2004. It is not understood how court below in the teeth of such material contradictions could proceed to hold respondent-accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Contradiction, if any, with regard to alleged date of incident in the statement of PW-1 could be ignored, but statements having been made by PW-3 and PW-4, who were actually present at the site of the incident, were required to be dealt with carefully by the court below. Contradictions in the statements of aforesaid witnesses could not be ignored by the court below keeping in view their presence at the time of alleged occurrence because aforesaid witnesses had an occasion to see the incident with their eyes. It has come in the statement of PW-3, Himachali that after alleged incident matter was reported to class teacher namely Smt. Sudesh, otherwise also if statements having been made by these prosecution witnesses are read in its entirety, there appears to be no consistency and as such, could not be taken into consideration by the court below while holding accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 21. 21. Most importantly, as has been observed above, respondent-accused had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of victim as well as other students including PW-3, Himachali, but there is no mention in the FIR allegedly lodged at the behest of the mother of victim. Interestingly, version put forth by these child witnesses otherwise does not appear to be trustworthy for the reason that it is difficult to digest that respondent-accused committed such heinous crime in the presence of number of students that too in the class room. Though, it has come in the statement of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 that students were given beating by accused and as such, they did not make any hue and cry, but aforesaid story/version narrated by such witnesses is not acceptable in teeth of material contradictions in the statements having been made by these child witnesses. It has also come in the statements of these witnesses that while accused was committing this alleged act with the victim, teacher namely Sudesh was watching it from outside. 22. Apart from above, it has come in the statements of aforesaid witnesses that matter was reported to class teacher namely Sudesh immediately after alleged accident. It has also come on record that class teacher namely Sudesh after having seen the alleged incident left the place and thereafter she was talking to one Sh. Om Prakash, who was employee of the school, but prosecution has not cared to cite class teacher Smt. Sudesh, as prosecution witness. As per story of the prosecution Smt. Sudesh was the first person to know the alleged incident, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution she was not cited as prosecution witness. 23. Admittedly, on the date of alleged incident PW-5, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, who happened to be head mistress, was on leave. Though, in her statement she stated that when she returned on 2.4.2004 she was informed about the incident that accused has outraged the modesty of the girl after consuming liquor. She also stated that she had forwarded letter Ex.PW5/A to the management. There is no explanation, if any, on the part of PW-5 that why she did not lodge the FIR immediately after having come to know about the alleged incident. 24. She also stated that she had forwarded letter Ex.PW5/A to the management. There is no explanation, if any, on the part of PW-5 that why she did not lodge the FIR immediately after having come to know about the alleged incident. 24. PW-5, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and PW-1, Smt. Vidya Devi categorically stated that matter had come to the notice of the management on 2nd April, 2004, but no steps whatsoever, taken by the management to report the matter to the police. Matter came to be lodged on 8th April, 2004 that too at the behest of the complainant, who happened to be mother of the victim. If timing of lodging FIR Ex.PA is seen, this certainly compels this court to agree with the contention having been made by learned counsel for the respondent- accused that entire story was concocted by the management and its functionaries including Amarjit, Ved Prakash, Rajinder Kumar and Shiv Kumar, who were named in the FIR lodged by the respondent-accused i.e. Ex.DW5/A, which though was registered on 8th April, 200,4 but report was made on 2nd April, 2004. 25. True, it is that perusal of judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court suggests that it had taken due care and caution before recording the statement of child witnesses. But, it is well settled that statement, if any, made by the child witness is required to be dealt with greatest caution and circumspection by the courts while ascertaining the correctness of the statement having been made by child witness because possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out as far as child witness is concerned. In the instant case, as has been noticed above, no reliance upon the statements of minor witness could be placed by the court in view of the contradictions in their statements with regard to date of alleged incident as well as presence of students in the class room. 26. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Chhinder Kaur @ Chhipkali & Ors versus State of Rajasthan 2008(3) Criminal Court Cases 949; wherein it has been held as under:- 6. Privy Council in Mohammed Sunal v. King AIR 1946 PC 3 indicated thus:- “In England where provision has been made for the reception of unsworned evidence, from a child it has been always been provided that the evidence must be corroborated in some material particulars implicating the accused. Privy Council in Mohammed Sunal v. King AIR 1946 PC 3 indicated thus:- “In England where provision has been made for the reception of unsworned evidence, from a child it has been always been provided that the evidence must be corroborated in some material particulars implicating the accused. But in Indian Acts there is no such provision and the evidence is made admissible whether corroborated or not. Once there is admissible evidence, court can act upon. It is sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworned or unsworned, but this is a Rule of prudence and not of law.” “7. It is well settled that the testimony of a child witness should only be accepted after the greatest caution and circumspection. The rational for this is that it is common experience that a child witness is most susceptible to tutoring. Both on account of fear and inducement, he can be made to depose about things which he has not seen and once having been tutored, he goes on repeating in a parrot like manner what he has been tutored to state.” 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled -State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and Anr. (2000)3 SCC 70 , wherein it has been held as under:- “Thus, it is well settled in law that the Court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say, the corroboration is not a must to record a conviction, but as a rule of prudence, the Court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, applies to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable.” 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. versus Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786 , wherein it has been held as under:- “14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. versus Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786 , wherein it has been held as under:- “14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.” 29. 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. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686 : 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) “14. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686 : 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) “14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy;..the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.” 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that “ no man is guilty until proven so,” hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in evidence amongst all the witnesses. 30. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the learned Additional District Judge, which otherwise appears to be based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence as well as law on the point and as such same is upheld. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.