JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - These appeals are directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 15. 12. 2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeals No. 6 & 7 of 2005, reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30. 3. 2005/11. 4. 2005, passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby respondents(hereinafter referred to as the ''accused'') were convicted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( hereinafter referred to as the ''IPC''). 2. Facts as emerge from the record are that on 6. 10. 1999, Madan Lal, Forest Guard of Addu Beat, while doing patrolling duty in forest i. e. C-91, Tangri Dhar, found two Deodar trees of IInd-A, illicitly felled. Above named Forest Guard also found 20 sleepers allegedly processed therefrom near the site of illicit felling. Madan Lal, Forest Guard after having noticed illicit felling, associated the villagers of village, Addu and kept constant watch on the sleepers with a view to apprehend the culprits. On 11. 10. 1999, Forest Guard, Madan Lal accompanied by Devi Singh, Surat Sigh, Padam Dass, Goverdhan Dass, Roop Singh, Jawahar Singh and Sher Singh, laid a nakka in the Jungle and at about 12:00 midnight they heard some noise caused by felling of the sleepers in Addu Nallah. Above named persons also noticed that one truck came from Narkanda side, which allegedly halted near the sleepers. 4-5 occupants of the truck started loading the sleepers, but thereafter Madan Lal, Forest Guard accompanied by other villagers, named hereinabove, rushed towards the truck, but persons loading sleepers in truck after having seen them coming towards their side, unloaded the sleepers from the truck and made an attempt to flee therefrom alongwith the truck. Forest Guard alongwith other persons nabbed two Kashmiries, who subsequently disclosed their identity as Kamardeen and Mohmad Sadique. Villagers also succeeded in halting the truck by throwing boulders on the road. Accused Sunil Kumar, who has since expired and respondent-accused Baldev Sharma were also caught by the villagers. Thereafter, matter was reported to police Station, Nankhari. Forest Guard alongwith other persons nabbed two Kashmiries, who subsequently disclosed their identity as Kamardeen and Mohmad Sadique. Villagers also succeeded in halting the truck by throwing boulders on the road. Accused Sunil Kumar, who has since expired and respondent-accused Baldev Sharma were also caught by the villagers. Thereafter, matter was reported to police Station, Nankhari. Subsequently, on the basis of the report submitted by the Forest Guard, a formal FIR came to be registered against the accused persons under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law. 3. The learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima facie case exist against the accused persons, framed charge against them under Sections 33,41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence collected on record by the prosecution held all the accused persons guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, whereas they were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, respondent/accused Baldev Sharma alongwith other co-accused preferred an appeal, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeals No. 6 & 7 of 2005, however fact remains that appeals having been preferred by the respondents/accused were allowed, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be set-aside. 6. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of instant appeals, seeking therein conviction of respondents/accused under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur. At this stage, it may be noticed that the appellant-State did not lay any challenge to the acquittal of the respondents/accused under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and as such, findings qua the same returned by the learned trial Court attained finality. 7. Mr. At this stage, it may be noticed that the appellant-State did not lay any challenge to the acquittal of the respondents/accused under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and as such, findings qua the same returned by the learned trial Court attained finality. 7. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, strenuously argued that same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is contrary to the evidence available on record and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Learned Additional Advocate General, further contended that bare perusal of the same suggest that court below has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record. 8. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, made this court to travel through the entire evidence collected on record by the prosecution to suggest that prosecution successfully proved on record that on the alleged date of incident, respondents/accused indulged in illegal felling of trees and thereafter they made an attempt to steal the sleepers of Deodar trees in the truck. While referring to the disclosure statement made by the accused Kamardeen, learned Additional Advocate General, contended that accused himself disclosed to the police that in presence of forest officials they had cut deodar trees from the spot and thereafter they had converted the same into sleepers and as such, there was no scope left to the learned Sessions Judge to reverse the findings of learned trial Court, which was based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence. 9. Mr. V. S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent/accused namely Baldev Sharma, while refuting the aforesaid submission having been made by learned Additional Advocate General, contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, rather same is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence and as such, same deserve to be upheld. While inviting the attention of this Court to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, Mr. Chauhan, strenuously contended that none of prosecution witnesses stated something specific with regard to their having witnessed felling of trees by the respondents/accused. Mr. While inviting the attention of this Court to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, Mr. Chauhan, strenuously contended that none of prosecution witnesses stated something specific with regard to their having witnessed felling of trees by the respondents/accused. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that it has nowhere come in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that they saw respondents/accused cutting trees and as such, learned Sessions Judge, rightly came to the conclusion that there is no direct evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that Deodar trees were cut by the respondents/accused. While referring to the spot map Ex. PW7/A, Mr. Chauhan, contended that truck allegedly used by the respondents/accused for carrying sleepers has shown to be standing at the distance of 1 Km. away from the actual spot of felling of trees and there is no evidence led on record by the prosecution that how timber was carried from actual spot to the truck standing 1 Km away from the spot. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that bare perusal of the statements of material prosecution witnesses clearly suggest that no conviction, if any, could be recorded on the basis of their statements because of material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan, contended that none of the prosecution witnesses were able to identify the respondents/accused in the Court and as such, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be rightly reversed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 11. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the entire record, perusal whereof, certainly not compels this Court to agree with the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that there is total misreading, misappreciation and misconstruction of the evidence by learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondents/accused of charges framed against them. At this stage, it may be noticed that one of co-accused namely Sunil Kumar, driver of the truck had expired during the pendency of the trial, whereas another accused Mohmad Sadiq was declared proclaimed offender. 12. At this stage, it may be noticed that one of co-accused namely Sunil Kumar, driver of the truck had expired during the pendency of the trial, whereas another accused Mohmad Sadiq was declared proclaimed offender. 12. Bare perusal of the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court, clearly suggest that respondents/accused were held not guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and findings returned qua the same was not laid challenge by the appellantState and as such, same have attained finality. Since, there is categorical findings available on record with regard to noncommission of offence, if any, by respondents/accused under sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, which has already attained finality, appellant-State cannot be allowed to raise/made contention, if any, at this stage with regard to illicit felling by respondent/accused. Question which remains to be decided by this Court is whether findings returned by the learned Sessions Judge qua guilt, if any, committed by the respondents/accused under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence or not?. 13. After having carefully perused the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses, this Court sees considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel representing the respondents/ accused that none of prosecution witnesses have stated that they saw the respondents/accused carrying timber allegedly converted by them from Deodar trees from the spot to the truck, which was admittedly standing at the distance of 1 Km from the alleged site of the occurrence. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is/was that Forest Guard, Madan Lal after having noticed illegal felling in the jungle, laid a nakka with the help of the villagers to nab the culprits, but interestingly, no attempt has been made by the prosecution to prove on record that Forest Guard, Madan Lal and other villagers nabbed/apprehended the respondents/accused at the spot of alleged felling, rather all the prosecution witnesses have stated that they after having heard noise of converting trees into sleepers, nabbed four persons including the respondents/accused. But question remains that as per spot map truck was standing at the distance of 1. KM away from the alleged site of felling and none of prosecution witnesses has stated that they saw respondents/accused carrying timber from the alleged site of felling to the truck. But question remains that as per spot map truck was standing at the distance of 1. KM away from the alleged site of felling and none of prosecution witnesses has stated that they saw respondents/accused carrying timber from the alleged site of felling to the truck. If the statements of all the prosecution witnesses are read in conjunction, it only suggest that they saw accused loading timber on the truck which is/was admittedly parked 1 Km away from the place of occurrence. It is not understood that when as per story of the prosecution nakka was laid near the site of alleged illegal felling of trees, how the respondents/accused could carry the timber to a truck which is/was 1 Km away. Otherwise also, there is no direct evidence available on record to connect the respondents/accused with the recovery of timber from the truck because none of the prosecution witnesses was able to identify the respondents/accused. Similarly, there appears to be no attempt on the part of the prosecution to identify the timber allegedly cut from the Addu Beat and then connect the same with the alleged illegal transportation of the same by the respondents/accused. 14. Needless to say, it is always incumbent upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in this regard it is expected to lead cogent and convincing evidence on record, but in the case at hand, this Court after having gone through the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, has no hesitation to conclude that there are material contradictions and insistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and as such, no much reliance could be placed on the same by the learned trial Court while ascertaining the guilt of respondents/accused. 15. 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. 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 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. 16. 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. 16. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law referred hereinabove, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on record and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, alongwith pending application(s), if any.