JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J —Instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 5.9.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 8-N/10 of 2013, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.1.2013/6.2.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal case No.82/2 of 2009, has been set-aside. 2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution as emerge from the record are that on 28.1.2009, prosecutrix lodged a complaint at police Station, Paonta Sahib, alleging therein that in the night of 26.1.2009, at around 10:00 PM, her husband went to irrigate the fields, after 15-20 minutes, accused came to her house and after sometime, he also went towards the field to irrigate the same. She fell asleep while watching television. But, at around 11:00 PM, one person entered her room and she thought that her husband has returned back. Allegedly, the said person started touching private parts of her body, upon which, she woke up and saw that it was the accused, who was touching her. Accused also tried to open the string of her salwar. Though, prosecutrix tried to escape from the clutches of the accused, but accused had shut her mouth with his hand. In the meanwhile, husband of the prosecutrix returned back, and on noticing her husband, accused fled away from the scene. Prosecutrix further alleged that since she was short of money to pay bus fare, matter could not be reported immediately to the police after the alleged incident. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR Ex.PW1/A, came to be registered against the accused. 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 exists against the accused put notice of accusation under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.1.2013, held the respondent/accused guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 4. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.1.2013, held the respondent/accused guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 454 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 354 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, respondent/accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.8-N/10 of 2013, however fact remains that appeal having been preferred by the respondent/accused was allowed, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be set-aside. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State, has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for restoration of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned First Appellate Court. 6. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law because same is not based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence and as such, same needs to be rectified, in accordance with law. Mr. Chandel, while making this Court to travel through the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned First Appellate Court, strenuously argued that learned First Appellate Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, erroneous findings have come on record and the accused has been let of on very flimsy grounds. Mr. Chandel, while making this Court to travel through the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned First Appellate Court, strenuously argued that learned First Appellate Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, erroneous findings have come on record and the accused has been let of on very flimsy grounds. Learned Deputy Advocate General, further contended that if the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are read in conjunction, it clearly suggest that on the date of alleged incident accused entered into the room of the prosecutrix and thereafter made an endeavour to outrage her modesty and as such, there was no scope left for the court below to set-aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and as such, impugned judgment of acquittal being contrary to the record available on record, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Mr. Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, further contended that bare reading of the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, clearly suggest that learned court below has drawn its own inferences while ascertaining the guilt of the accused and has arrived at wrong conclusion that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel representing the respondent/accused, while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal, contended that same is based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence and as such, same needs to be upheld. While referring to the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, Mr. Tyagi, contended that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements with regard to the alleged incident and as such, learned First Appellate Court has rightly placed no reliance upon the same. Mr. Tyagi, further contended that there is no explanation, worth the name, available on record with regard to the delay in lodging of the FIR, which admittedly came to be lodged after two days of the alleged occurrence. Mr. Mr. Tyagi, further contended that there is no explanation, worth the name, available on record with regard to the delay in lodging of the FIR, which admittedly came to be lodged after two days of the alleged occurrence. Mr. Tyagi, further contended that there is no independent witness associated on record by the prosecution to lend support, if any, to the story/version put forth by the prosecution witnesses and as such, no conviction, if any, could be recorded by the learned court below merely on the basis of the statements of husband and wife, who otherwise categorically admitted in their cross-examination that they have prior litigation pending in the competent Court of law against the accused. 9. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 10. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to go through the entire evidence adduced on record by the prosecution vis--vis impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned First Appellate Court and as such, this Court finds it difficult to accept the submissions of learned Deputy Advocate General that learned First Appellate Court has misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution while examining the correctness of the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. Rather, this Court after having perused the entire record, has no hesitation to conclude that no much reliance could be placed on the versions put forth by PW-1 and PW-2 because of material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements and as such, learned First Appellate Court rightly ignored them while ascertaining the guilt, if any, of the respondent/accused. Similarly, this Court finds no error in the findings returned by the learned First Appellate Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Interestingly, in the case at hand, there is no attempt on the part of the prosecution to prove the contents of the challan filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, because the statements having been made by PW-1 (prosecutrix) and her husband PW-2, nowhere support the story put forth by the other prosecution witnesses, rather both the aforesaid witnesses have given altogether different story. If the statements of prosecution witnesses are examined/ analyzed, it certainly suggest that an endeavour has been made to prove on record that accused was stranger to the family of the complainant and he was not related to the prosecutrix, in any manner. Prosecutrix (PW-1) in her statement stated that accused resides at a little distance from her house. If the charge sheet filed by the SHO, is read juxtaposing statement of PW-1(prosecutrix) , it suggest that something else. In charge sheet, it has been specifically mentioned that sister of the accused is married to the brother-in -law (Jaith) of the prosecutrix and due to this relationship accused had been visiting the house of the prosecutrix frequently. It also emerge from the record of challan that on 26.o1.2009 accused was present in the house of the prosecutrix and accused taking undue advantage of the absence of husband of the prosecutrix, made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. Version as contained in the challan filed under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure is totally contrary to the statement of the prosecutrix, who stated that accused resides at a little distance from her house. As per prosecutrix, she was watching television at her house on 26.1.2009 and at around 10:00 PM, her husband went out to irrigate the fields. She further stated that she alongwith her seven months old son were in the room, when accused Vicki @ Surinder came there and asked her the whereabouts of her husband. She further stated that thereafter the accused left her house and she fell asleep while watching television. As per prosecutrix, she after some time felt that somebody was touching her private parts and she woke up and saw that it was the accused, who had made an attempt to sexually assault her. In the meanwhile, her husband returned back, and accused fled away from the scene. She further stated that her brother-in-law, Shri Data Ram also reached the spot, but interestingly this fact is nowhere stated in the complaint initially lodged by the prosecutrix to the police. Moreover, above named person Sh. Data Ram was given up by the prosecution. She, in her cross-examination, admitted that her mother-in-law resides with her as well as her brother in law. Moreover, above named person Sh. Data Ram was given up by the prosecution. She, in her cross-examination, admitted that her mother-in-law resides with her as well as her brother in law. Though, she denied that there is any dispute between her husband and the accused, but admitted that she had filed complaint against Sh. Data Ram for outraging her modesty. 12. Sh. Tara Chand (PW-2) , husband of the prosecutrix, deposed that he cultivates his land with his brother Sh. Data Ram. On 26.1.2009, at around 10:00, he left his house to irrigate the fields. He further stated that he returned back at around 11:00 PM and when he switched on the light of his room, he found accused lying over his wife. He further stated that accused had shut the mouth of his wife and was trying to open the string of her salwar. He further stated that television was in running mode. He tried to nab the accused, but he fled away. He further stated that lateron Sh. Data Ram also reached the spot. He and his wife reported the matter to the police on 28th. He further stated that his mother was sleeping in the other room of his house when the alleged incident occurred. If the statement of this witness is read juxtaposing statement of the prosecutrix, it certainly compels this Court to agree with the contention of learned counsel representing the respondent/accused that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements with regard to presence of the accused at the time of alleged incident. Moreover, it is not understood that if the accused was not known to the complainant and her family, how he could enter in her room at 10:00 PM when allegedly husband of the prosecutrix left for the fields to irrigate the same. There is no evidence available on record that at 10:00 PM, prosecutrix raised hue and cry, if any, meaning thereby, version put forth by these witnesses that accused was stranger is not correct, rather, as has been noticed above, it clearly emerge from the evidence that accused had prior acquaintance with the prosecutrix and her husband and for the whole day i.e. on 26.1.2009, he was present in the house of the prosecutrix. Similarly, there are material contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to the presence of mother-in-law in the house at time of alleged incident. PW-1, categorically stated that though mother-in-law resides with her, but on that day she was in the house of her brother-in-law, but as per PW-2 on the date of alleged incident mother-in-law was sleeping in other room of the house. Though, prosecutrix stated that she made an attempt to rescue herself from the clutches of the accused, but he had gagged her mouth, but story/version put forth by the prosecutrix does not appear to be trustworthy because there is nothing in the statement of PW-2 that when he entered the room of the prosecutrix there were some noise being caused due to scuffle, if any, between the accused and her wife, rather he stated that when he entered the room the accused was lying over the body of the prosecutrix. 13. Leaving everything aside, it is not understood that once Data Ram was a direct eye witness to the incident, why he was given up by the prosecution. Though, explanation has been rendered on record that he was won over, but that could not be a ground for prosecution to give up that witness, especially when there was no other independent witness associated by the prosecution to lend support to the story of the prosecution. Apart from above, it clearly emerge from the cross-examination conducted on these witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, who otherwise are related to each other being husband and wife, that there were other houses adjoining to the house of accused, but there appears to be no effort on the part of the prosecution to associate independent witness. 14. True, it is that the version put forth by the interested witnesses cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that they are closely related to each other, but law is well settled that version put forth by such witnesses are to be examined carefully and cautiously. 14. True, it is that the version put forth by the interested witnesses cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that they are closely related to each other, but law is well settled that version put forth by such witnesses are to be examined carefully and cautiously. In the case at hand, as has been noticed above, it clearly emerge from the record that there was prior dispute between accused and husband of the prosecutrix with regard to land and as such, learned trial court ought to have exercised due care and caution while ascertaining the correctness of the version put forth by these witnesses while ascertaining the guilt of the respondent/ accused. 15. There is another aspect of the matter at hand that though alleged incident occurred on 26.1.2009, whereas FIR came to be lodged on 28.1.2009 i.e. that after two days and there is no plausible explanation rendered on record by the prosecutrix with regard to delay in lodging the FIR. PW-1 in her statement has stated that since she had no money to pay the fare of the bus, report could not be lodged well within time. It stands duly proved on record that husband of the prosecutrix is a carpenter and earns Rs. 200-300/- per day and as such, explanation rendered on record does not appear to be plausible and was rightly rejected by the learned First Appellate Court. It has also come in the statement of PW-2 that police station is/was 4-5 Km away from his house, this much distance could be covered by the complainant alongwith her husband on foot. 16. Similarly, this Court finds no explanation rendered on record by the prosecutrix that why she left her room unbolted, especially when after departure of her husband at 10:00 PM, accused had entered her room. If version put forth by PW-1 and PW-2 to the effect that accused was stranger is presumed to be correct, prosecutrix should have bolted the door from inside, especially when the accused had entered her room for the first time at 10:00 PM after the departure of her husband. It is also not understood that why prosecution failed to cite mother- in -law of the prosecutrix as a prosecution witness, who could certainly lend some support to the story of prosecution. It is also not understood that why prosecution failed to cite mother- in -law of the prosecutrix as a prosecution witness, who could certainly lend some support to the story of prosecution. It stands duly proved on record that accused was closely related to the prosecutrix and her husband and he throughout the day remained present in the house of the prosecutrix, as stands mentioned in the challan. 17. As has been noticed hereinabove, both the prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have admitted in one way or other with regard to their enmity with the accused and as such, statement made by the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he categorically stated that since he had changed the channel of water for irrigating his field, husband of the complainant got furious and lodged false complaint against him, ought to have been examined/considered in that pretext by the court below while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. 18. 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 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. 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. 19. After perusing the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well exhibits placed on record, two views are possible in the present case and as such, the petitioner-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioneraccused has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court State of UP versus Ghambhir Singh & others , (2005) AIR(Supreme Court) 2439, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that if on the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- "6. So far as Hori Lal, PW-1 is concerned, he had been sent to fetch a basket from the village and it was only a matter of coincidence that while he was returning he witnessed the entire incident. The High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his testimony because he evidence clearly shows that he had an animus against the appellants. Moreover, his evidence was not corroborated by objective circumstances. The High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his testimony because he evidence clearly shows that he had an animus against the appellants. Moreover, his evidence was not corroborated by objective circumstances. Though it was his categorical case that all of them fired, no injury caused by rifle was found, and, only two wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Apart from this PW-3 did not mention the presence of either PW-1 or PW-2 at the time of occurrence. All these circumstances do create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The presence of these three witnesses becomes doubtful if their evidence is critically scrutinized. May be it is also possible to take a view in favour of the prosecution, but since the High Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a finding in favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred." 20. 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 First Appellate Court, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on record and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, alongwith pending application(s) , if any.