JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. In nutshell, case of prosecution is that on 1.8.2006, at about 7.30 p.m. complainant alongwith her sister Vipna Devi and mother Nirmala Devi was sitting in her courtyard. Respondent-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) came on the spot and started hurling abuses at the complainant and her family members. When complainant inquired about the reason for hurling abuses, accused allegedly assaulted complainant and tried to pull the Salwar worn by the complainant and touched her with the intention to outrage her modesty. Accused also threatened the complainant and her sister Vipna Devi to outrage their modesty and to do away with their lives. Complainant, her mother and sister raised hue and cry, however the neighbourers closed their doors. Accused fled from the spot advancing threats to the complainant and her family. On the basis of aforesaid complaint (exhibit PW-1/A), formal FIR (exhibit PW-1/B) came to be registered against accused. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law i.e. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Learned trial Court on being satisfied that prima facie case exists against accused, charged him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 504 and 506 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, fact remains that the learned trial Court subsequently vide judgment dated 29.12.2007, found accused not guilty of having committed offences punishable under aforesaid provision and accordingly acquitted him. In the aforesaid background, State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the accused after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 2. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this court to the evidence led on record by the prosecution vis-a-vis impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, vehemently argued that the learned Court below has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, erroneous findings have come on record and accused has been let off on very flimsy grounds. While specifically inviting attention of this Court to the statements of PW-1 (complainant), PW-2 Smt. Nirmala Devi (mother of complainant) and PW-3 Kumari Vipna Devi (sister of complainant), learned Additional Advocate General contended that all the material prosecution witnesses categorically stated that on 1.8.2006, accused forcibly and unauthorisedly entered into courtyard of the house of the complainant and thereafter he made an attempt to outrage her modesty and as such, there was no occasion for the court below to acquit the accused. Mr. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the court below, while acquitting accused placed undue reliance upon the agreement Mark “X” suggestive of the fact that on 2.8.2006, some quarrel had taken place between mother of the complainant and mother of the accused, whereafter, on the intervention of the members of Gram Panchayat, matter was compromised. Mr. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General contended that even otherwise, compromise is dated 2.8.2006, whereas, incident pertains to 1.8.2006. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal being contrary to evidence available on record is not sustainable and accused deserves to be convicted for having committed offence punishable under Sections 294, 504 and 506 IPC. 3. Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel representing the accused, while refuting aforesaid contentions having been made by the learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that no case is made out against the accused, whose presence on the spot at the time of alleged offence itself is doubtful. Mr. Nitin Thakur further contended that even otherwise, bare perusal of depositions made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 clearly suggests that there are material contradictions with regard to time of incident, as such, learned Court below rightly ignored the same, while acquitting the accused. Lastly, Mr. Nitin Thakur contended that there is no explanation available on record that what prevented the complainant from lodging report with the police at the first instance, because admittedly, complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC came to be filed on the next day. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Lastly, Mr. Nitin Thakur contended that there is no explanation available on record that what prevented the complainant from lodging report with the police at the first instance, because admittedly, complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC came to be filed on the next day. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Close scrutiny of evidence led on record by respective parties compels this Court to conclude that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, since there are material contradictions in their statements with regard to time of the incident. As per PW-1 complainant, on 1.8.2006 at about 7.30 pm, accused came in their courtyard and started hurling abuses. She further stated that accused threatened that he will make them naked in public. When mother of the complainant asked accused why he was threatening and abusing them, accused assaulted complainant, touched her and tried to pull her Salwar. However, if the contents of exhibit PW-1/A (complaint) lodged by complainant are examined juxtaposing the deposition made by her in the Court, there are material contradictions in the same, since there is no mention with regard to pulling her clothes by accused. 6. PW-2 also corroborated version put forth by PW-1 that on 1.8.2006, accused came in their courtyard and started threatening and abusing complainant. She also stated that accused assaulted complainant and tried to outrage her modesty, but interestingly, this witness stated that the accused assaulted complainant and tried to outrage her modesty when Vipna Devi, i.e. sister of the complainant tried to rescue her. As has been noticed above, PW-1 stated in her statement that when her mother intervened, accused assaulted her and made an attempt to outrage her modesty. Nirmala Devi also stated that she rescued her daughters and locked them inside room but nothing of this sort has come in the statement of PW-1. PW-3, Vipna Devi while stating that house of accused is adjacent to their house, averred that accused was working inside his plot and at once he started abusing and threatening them. When mother of complainant inquired reason for the same, accused assaulted complainant and pulled her Salwar. PW-3, Vipna Devi while stating that house of accused is adjacent to their house, averred that accused was working inside his plot and at once he started abusing and threatening them. When mother of complainant inquired reason for the same, accused assaulted complainant and pulled her Salwar. This witness categorically stated that incident occurred at 6.30 p.m. whereas PW-1 (complainant) stated that incident occurred at 7.30 p.m. 7. Conjoint reading of the versions put forth by these material prosecution witnesses creates suspicion with regard to correctness of the prosecution case. Certainly, there are material contradictions with regard to time of alleged incident and accused having pulled clothes of complainant. Interestingly, in the case at hand, though it has come in the statements of prosecution witnesses that there are number of houses adjacent to the house of complainant but there appears to be no attempt on the part of investigating agency to associate independent witnesses. Only eye-witness associated by the investigating agency i.e. PW-4 Bhagat Ram nowhere supported the case of prosecution and as such, he was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, prosecution was not able to elicit anything contrary to what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 8. On the other hand, accused, while claiming himself to be innocent, produced agreement, mark “X” in his defence and also examined three witnesses from his side. Accused claimed that no incident had taken place on 1.8.2006, however, a quarrel had taken place between his mother and mother of complainant on 2.8.2006, whereafter, with the intervention of the Gram Panchayat, compromise, mark “X” was arrived at inter se them. 9. DW-1, Desh Raj also supported the aforesaid version of accused. He categorically stated that there was some quarrel between mother of accused and mother of complainant, relating to some land. He categorically stated that mother and father of accused were on the spot at the time of incident and accused was not present. He further stated that incident actually happened on 2.8.2006, whereafter, Panchayat was called on the spot and an agreement was entered into between the parties. He specifically denied that quarrel had taken place between complainant and accused. 10. Similarly, DW-2 Sher Singh and DW-3 Inder Singh also supported the version put forth by DW-1, Desh Raj. He further stated that incident actually happened on 2.8.2006, whereafter, Panchayat was called on the spot and an agreement was entered into between the parties. He specifically denied that quarrel had taken place between complainant and accused. 10. Similarly, DW-2 Sher Singh and DW-3 Inder Singh also supported the version put forth by DW-1, Desh Raj. Both these witnesses categorically stated that there was some quarrel between mother of the complainant and mother of the accused, whereafter, Panchayat was called at the spot and an agreement was entered into between them. DW-2 specifically stated that at the time of agreement between the parties before Panchayat, Nirmala Devi (mother of complainant) had threatened mother of accused. DW-3 Inder Singh stated that at the time of incident, accused was not present, rather, incident occurred on 2.8.2006, when accused was not present. 11. Having carefully perused evidence available on record, this Court finds substantial force in the argument of Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel representing the accused that presence of accused on the date of alleged incident is doubtful, rather it stands duly proved on record that accused was not present on the date of alleged incident, which had actually taken place on 2.8.2006, and not on 1.8.2006, as has been claimed by the complainant and her family members. Though, there is no bar as such to place reliance upon the testimony of close relatives of complainant, but in the case at hand, all the material prosecution witnesses have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that they had previous litigation with the accused. Prosecution ought to have cited independent witnesses to strengthen its story more so when independent witnesses were available. 12. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that alleged incident occurred on 1.8.2006, there is no explanation available on record that what prevented complainant from lodging complaint with the police on the same day or very next day. In the case at hand, complainant instead of lodging complaint with police, chose to file a private complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. There is no document available on record from where it can be inferred that police was reluctant to register case/FIR. 13. In the case at hand, complainant instead of lodging complaint with police, chose to file a private complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. There is no document available on record from where it can be inferred that police was reluctant to register case/FIR. 13. Having carefully perused the evidence available on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that no reliance could be placed upon the version put forth by these witnesses since there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements. 14. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial evidence of eyewitness requires careful assessment and needs to be evaluated for its creditability. Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon 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 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 vs. 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 vs. 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.” 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. Having sifted entire evidence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below especially when there are material contradictions in the statements of the material prosecution witnesses, rendering the whole story put forth by them improbable. 16. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with judgment dated 29.12.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 70/2 of 2006, which is accordingly upheld. In result, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by accused are discharged. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.