JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of acquittal dated 24. 12. 2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 44-II/2014, whereby respondents-accused came to be acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 341, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC, State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondents-accused after setting aside judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned Court below. 2. Relevant facts shorn of unnecessary details, as emerge from the record are that the complainant Sunita Devi came to the Police Post Yol, District Kangra alongwith her husband and presented an application Ext. PW-1/A, stating therein that she is resident of Village Jadrangal and on 15.1.2014, at about 1.30 pm, when she was returning to her house after working in the fields, respondent Ram Krishan came hurling abuses and restrained her in the passage. She raised objection, on which she was pushed and pulled and asked why complainant had started ploughing. Respondent, who was having a Darati (sickle) caused injury on the hand of the complainant. Husband of complainant, on hearing noise came to rescue her from the clutches of respondent No. 1, who was joined by accused No. 2, i.e. wife of the accused No. 1 and their son Gulshan Kumar. Complainant also alleged that wife of the accused Ram Krishan, i.e. accused No. 2 also slapped her husband. Police after having received aforesaid complaint, lodged a formal FIR Ext. PW-6/B and got the complainant medically examined, vide Ext. PW-4/B i.e. MLC. After completion of investigation, police presented a Challan in the competent Court of law, who being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the respondent-accused, framed charges against them under Sections 341, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many seven witnesses, whereas respondents-accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, claimed that they have been falsely implicated. However, the fact remains that they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution held respondents-accused not guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 504/34 IPC and accordingly acquitted them. However, the fact remains that they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution held respondents-accused not guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 504/34 IPC and accordingly acquitted them. In the aforesaid background, State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of the accused, after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court. 4. Mr. M. L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, vehemently argued that the same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court to travel through evidence part, strenuously argued that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged occurrence, both the respondents-accused hurled abuses at the complainant and her husband and also gave them beatings. To substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Chauhan, invited attention of this Court to the medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to suggest that it stands duly proved on record that in the aforesaid incident, complainant suffered simple injury, which could only be caused by sickle being carried at the relevant time by respondent No. 1. While praying for conviction of the respondents, Mr. Chauhan, contended that there is total misreading, mis-appreciation and misconstruction of the evidence led on record by the prosecution as such, respondents-accused deserve to be convicted after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below. 5. Mr. Sat Prakash, learned legal aid counsel, while refuting aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned Additional Advocate General contended that no case is made out against the respondents-accused as such, they have been rightly acquitted by the learned Court below and there is no scope of interference by this Court with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, which is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record. While referring to the evidence, Mr. While referring to the evidence, Mr. Sat Prakash strenuously argued that none of the prosecution witnesses was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged occurrence, respondents-accused hurled abuses and gave beatings to the complainant as well as her husband. While inviting attention of this Court to the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses, Mr. Sat Prakash, learned legal aid counsel contended that there is no consistency in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, rather all the prosecution witnesses have given different versions altogether and as such, learned Court below has rightly not relied upon the same. While adverting to statement of PW-3, so called independent witness, Mr. Sat Prakash contended that no reliance, if any, can be placed upon her version because it has specifically come in her statement that she had strained relations with the respondents-accused on account of civil litigation pending in the competent Court of law 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. After having carefully perused the evidence, be it documentary or oral, adduced on record by the prosecution, this Court sees no force in the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, rather this Court, has no hesitation to conclude that none of the prosecution witnesses was able to specifically prove the case of the prosecution that on the date of alleged occurrence, respondents-accused obstructed path of the complainant and thereafter gave beatings to her. Similarly, this Court after having carefully perused evidence led on record by prosecution to prove its case, is not persuaded to agree with the contentions of learned Additional Advocate General that court below misread and misconstrued the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, rather, this Court, finds that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the version put forth by the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, because of inconsistencies in their statements made before the learned Court below. 8. 8. In the case at hand, PW-1 Sunita Devi deposed before the learned Court below that on 15.1.2014, at about 1.30 pm, when she was returning to her house from the fields, accused No. 1, who is her brother-in-law, started hurling abuses without any reason and when she raised objection qua abuses, accused No. 1 gave her pushes and threw her on ground. She was also slapped. She further stated that accused No. 1 Ram Krishan, raised objection why complainant was ploughing the fields. Accused Ram Krishan who was having a Darati caused injury to her. She further stated that her husband, who was ploughing the field, after hearing noise, came to her rescue. As per complainant, son and wife of the accused Ram Krishan came to spot and started hurling abuses and gave beatings to her and her husband. PW-1, in her cross-examination, admitted that they are in possession of old house of father and accused No. 1 is also having one room there. She also admitted that there is dispute inter se them regarding ploughing of land as well as possession of land but in her cross-examination, while denying suggestion put to her that she suffered injury on her hand due to fall, she categorically admitted that son of accused namely Gulshan Kumar is not accused in the present case. 9. Pw-3 Rajmal, husband of complainant also deposed on the similar lines as deposed by complainant, who happens to be wife of PW-3, that at about 1.30 pm, his wife was returning to house after working in the fields. He further stated that accused No. 1 came with a Darati in his hand and started hurling abuses at his wife, who raised objection. Accused No. 1 obstructed path of his wife and assaulted her with Darati. He also deposed that accused had cut rope of bulls with Darati. It has also come in his statement that he has given leg blow and assaulted with Darati and as such he suffered injuries. He also claimed that incident was witnessed by Primla Devi PW-2. It also came in his statement that police came on the spot on the next day and spot was inspected. Spot map was prepared. It has also come in his statement that his wife was medically examined on the next day. He also claimed that incident was witnessed by Primla Devi PW-2. It also came in his statement that police came on the spot on the next day and spot was inspected. Spot map was prepared. It has also come in his statement that his wife was medically examined on the next day. Contrary to the statement of PW-1, this witness also deposed that son of accused namely Gulshan Kumar was also intervening in the quarrel whereas, it has specially come in the statement of PW-1 that Gulshan Kumar is not accused. 10. If statements of both the witnesses are read in conjunction, there appear to be major contradictions with regard to presence of parties on the spot. As has been taken note above, it has specifically come in the statement of PW-1 that while she was returning from fields, her path was obstructed by accused and thereafter she was given blow of Darati on her hand, but if statement of PW-3 Rajmal is read in its entirety, it suggests something else. It has specifically come in the statement of PW-3 that at the relevant time, he was working in the fields and accused No. 1 had cut rope of bulls with Darati, which version of his is in total contradiction with the statement of PW-1, who has nowhere stated that quarrel, if any, took place inter se parties in the fields, where her husband was ploughing. Specific case as put forth by PW-1 is that while she was coming back to house, her path was obstructed by accused No. 1 and she was given blow with Darati on her hand. It has nowhere come in her statement that accused No. 1 also cut rope of bulls. Similarly, as has been taken note above, there is contradiction with regard to presence and intervention by Gulshan Kumar son of accused, in the alleged incident. 11. Leaving everything aside, it clearly emerges from the cross-examination conducted on aforesaid prosecution witnesses that there is dispute inter se parties with regard to land and house allegedly owned and possessed by their father. It clearly emerges from the statements of these witnesses that there are frequent quarrels inter se them qua land and house. 12. 11. Leaving everything aside, it clearly emerges from the cross-examination conducted on aforesaid prosecution witnesses that there is dispute inter se parties with regard to land and house allegedly owned and possessed by their father. It clearly emerges from the statements of these witnesses that there are frequent quarrels inter se them qua land and house. 12. Pw-2 Primla Devi, so called independent witness, deposed that on 15.1.2014, at about 1.30 pm, on hearing some noise, she came to spot and saw PW-3 Rajmal was ploughing the fields and accused persons were cutting rope of the bulls with Darati. Aforesaid version put forth by PW-2 totally belies and falsifies the version of PW-1, who in her statement nowhere gave version with regard to cutting of rope of bulls. Similarly, nothing can be inferred from statement of PW-1 that when accused allegedly gave beatings to her, PW-3 Rajmal, who happens to husband of PW-1, was ploughing fields. PW-2 Primla Devi further stated that when accused cut the rope of bulls, PW-1 raised objection, whereafter accused gave beatings to her. It has specifically come in her statement that accused was carrying a Darati and tried to cut rope of bulls. Moreover it has specifically come in her statement that persons namely Rajmal, Dhalko Devi and Saroj Kumari were also rescuing complainant from accused. She also stated that wife of accused Ram Krishan also hurled abuses and gave pushes and their son Gulshan Kumar was also making intervention. It has also come in her statement that dispute inter se parties with regard to land and house is quite old and they have been quarelling on this issue in the past also. 13. After having carefully perused statement of so called independent witness, story put forth by prosecution appears to be totally false and has rightly not been relied upon by the learned Court below, while ascertaining guilt of respondents-accused, who allegedly gave beatings to the complainant. Reading of statements having been made by aforesaid material prosecution witnesses compels this Court to agree with the arguments of Mr. Sat Prakash, legal aid counsel, that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of these witnesses and no reliance could be placed upon their versions, while ascertaining guilt of the respondents. Reading of statements having been made by aforesaid material prosecution witnesses compels this Court to agree with the arguments of Mr. Sat Prakash, legal aid counsel, that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of these witnesses and no reliance could be placed upon their versions, while ascertaining guilt of the respondents. Though statement of PW-3 suggests that there were other persons present at the time of alleged occurrence, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, no efforts were made to associate these persons to give more strength to prosecution case. 14. True it is, that statement of merely one person can be sufficient and enough to prove the case of the prosecution but in the case at hand, statement of PW-2 Primla Devi could not be given much credence, because of her animosity with the respondents. It has specifically come in her cross-examination that there is some dispute inter se her and accused, as such, there is every possibility of her siding with the complainant and her husband, who are inimical to respondents. 15. Similarly, prosecution, with a view to prove that complainant suffered injury on account of beatings allegedly given by accused No. 1, adduced on record medical evidence, but that may not be sufficient to hold respondents guilty of having committed offence punishable under aforesaid provisions, because prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent No. 1 gave blow of sickle on the hand of complainant. Otherwise also, it has specifically come in the statement of PW-4 Dr. B. B. Katoch, who medically examined the complainant that if a person holds Darati in hand and falls down, these injuries are possible. Since it has come in the evidence that at the relevant time, complainant was also carrying a Darati and she was pushed and pulled by respondents, there is every possibility of her having suffered injury on her hand after falling on Darati. 16. 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. 16. 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. 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. 17. 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. 17. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no reason to differ with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, which appears to be based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record. 18. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Judgment passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the Court below received by this Court, be returned forthwith.