JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Cr. Appeal filed under S.378 CrPC lays challenge to impugned judgment of acquittal dated 2.2.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Case No. 57- I/2006/5-III/2007, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') came to be acquitted of the charges framed against him under S.61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, 'Act'). 2. Facts, as emerge from the record of the case, are that on 30.10.2005, HC Gurchain Singh, LHC Manjeet Singh, Constable Swaran and Constable Satpal, who were present on Kaloh Chowk, at about 7.15 PM for the purpose of patrolling, intercepted vehicle bearing registration No. HP19A-7576 coming from Gagret side and recovered 42 bottles of English wine (Directors Special) measuring 750 ml each. Since the accused failed to produce any permit or licence qua the bottles allegedly recovered from the dickey of the vehicle as mentioned herein above, police, after completion of all codal formalities, registered FIR against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under S.61(1) of the At. After completion of investigation, Police presented Challan in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Amb, who being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to him for having committed offence punishable under S.61(1)(a) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas, accused in his statement under S.313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. Accused also examined one witness in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution, held accused not guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.61(1)(a) of the Act and accordingly acquitted him. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to convict the accused. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Court below, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led on record by respective parties. This Court is not in agreement with Mr. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Court below, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led on record by respective parties. This Court is not in agreement with Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned Additional Advocate General that learned Court below, while determining guilt, if any, of the accused, has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather, this Court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove it case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Pw-2 Ranjit Singh, in his examination-in-chief though supported the case of prosecution that Naka was laid on the spot of incident and the four boxes of liquor were recovered from the vehicle being driven by accused but if cross-examination of this witness is perused, he specifically stated that "it is wrong that in his presence, liquor was recovered". Similarly, he denied that samples were taken in his presence, whereas, in his examination-in-chief, he stated that from the recovered liquor, four nips were taken for chemical examination and sample seal was given to LHC Manjeet Singh. He also stated in his examination-in-chief that he signed Ext. PW-2/A along with Manjeet Singh. 7. Pw-3 Constable Manjeet Singh, who was allegedly with the police party at the relevant time, in his cross-examination stated that PW-2 Ranjit Singh had not gone to Police Station whereas, PW-2 in his cross-examination admitted that he had gone to the Police Station. PW-3 further stated that PW-2 Ranjit Singh made statement to the Police in his presence whereas, PW-2 Ranjit Singh in his cross-examination stated that Police has not recorded his signatures at the time of alleged incident rather, he had gone to the Police Station 8. Pw-6 Head Constable Satpal, who brought Rukka to the Police Station in his cross-examination stated that he is known to PW-2 Ranjit Singh since the year 2005. He also admitted that he had been visiting the shop of PW-2 Ranjit Singh for taking tea. Most importantly, this witness stated in his cross-examination that in his presence, PW-2 was not present at the place of occurrence, which version put forth by him is in total contradiction of statement of PW-2 Ranjit Singh, who claims that he was present on the spot of incident. 9. Most importantly, this witness stated in his cross-examination that in his presence, PW-2 was not present at the place of occurrence, which version put forth by him is in total contradiction of statement of PW-2 Ranjit Singh, who claims that he was present on the spot of incident. 9. Pw-7, HC Gurchain Singh, Investigating Officer, while proving the case of prosecution stated in his cross-examination that PW-2 Ranjit Singh was present on the spot of incident being an independent witness. He feigned ignorance whether PW-2 Ranjit Singh is having enmity, if any, with the accused. 10. Dw-1 Vinod Kumar, while deposing in favour of accused, contended that Ranjit Singh, PW-2 and accused were not having good relations on account of prior enmity. Though, version put forth by this witness with regard to prior animosity of PW-2 with the accused specifically came to be denied in cross-examination of PW-2, but if statements of prosecution witnesses are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other, same certainly creates doubt with regard to presence of PW-2 on the spot of alleged incident. Since all the prosecution witnesses, save and except, PW-2, are Police officials, version put forth by them cannot be relied upon in the absence of corroboration, if any, by statements of independent witnesses. 11. In the case at hand, PW-2 is stated to be an independent witness but, as has been taken note herein above, his presence on the spot is itself doubtful, as such, no reliance, if any, can be placed upon the same. 12. Leaving everything aside, PW-7, HC Gurchain Singh, Investigating Officer, stated that samples were taken from three bottles and three bottles were sealed separately whereas, remaining 35 bottles were sealed separately but the record of learned Court below, reveals that no sample seal allegedly handed over to PW-3, ever came to be produced before learned Court below as a consequence of which, accused came to be deprived of a valuable right of defence. Though, drawing of sample, if any, by investigating agency at the time of alleged recovery is itself doubtful on the ground of non-placing of sample seal in the court, but even otherwise, if it is presumed that three samples were drawn, and sent for chemical examination, recovery, if any, of three bottles only is proved against the accused. 13. Though, drawing of sample, if any, by investigating agency at the time of alleged recovery is itself doubtful on the ground of non-placing of sample seal in the court, but even otherwise, if it is presumed that three samples were drawn, and sent for chemical examination, recovery, if any, of three bottles only is proved against the accused. 13. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by our own High Court in "Surender Singh. V. State of H.P., (2013) 2 LatestHLJ 865 ", which reads as under:- "26. In the instant case, it be also noticed that there is yet another major flaw in the investigation by the police. Assuming that the contraband was actually recovered by the police party, police did not take samples from all the boxes. Samples only from few bottles out of some of the boxes, which they had opened, were taken. None of these witnesses have deposed that the remaining boxes were sealed; from outside appeared to be of the same make or brand; bearing serial numbers; the date of manufacture; or the place and the name of the manufacturer. All that these witnesses have deposed is that boxes of alcohol, as described above, were found in the vehicle. Inside the boxes could be anything. Police could not prove that the remaining boxes actually contained liquor. The samples cannot be said to be representative in character. 27. In similar circumstances, this Court in Mahajan versus State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) CriLJ 1346 ; State of H.P. versus Ramesh Chand,2007 2 LatestHLJ 1017 ; Dharam Pal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 2 ShimLC 208 ; and State of Himachal Pradesh versus Kuldeep Singh & others, 2010 2 HimLR 825, acquitted the accused, as prosecution could not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, as to what was actually there in the remaining boxes. 28. As per version of PW-1, outside the boxes 'Sirmour No.1' was printed which version stands denied by PW7. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the remaining boxes were in fact containing liquor. Quantity of the remaining bottles of the boxes from which samples were drawn has also not been proved to be liquor. These aspects have not been considered by the Courts below. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the remaining boxes were in fact containing liquor. Quantity of the remaining bottles of the boxes from which samples were drawn has also not been proved to be liquor. These aspects have not been considered by the Courts below. The cumulative effect is that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt and as such judgments of the Courts below are not sustainable in law." 14. Reliance is also placed on the judgment passed by this Court State of HP v. Jagjit Singh,2008 Latest HLJ 919 (HP) , wherein this Court has observed in paras 6 and 7 as under:- "6.At the very outset, I would like to say that neither the non-compliance of sub-section (6) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will render the search illegally nor the respondent can be acquitted on this sole ground. However, in the instant case the regrettable feature is that as per the case of the prosecution 72 pouches of country liquor of "Gulab" brand country liquor containing 180 ml. each were recovered from the possession of the respondent. Admittedly, one pouch of 180 ml. out of the recovered quantity was retained as a sample, which was of licit origin as opined by the Chemical Analyst. 7. There is nothing on record to show that the remaining 71 pouches alleged to have been recovered from the respondent also contain the country liquor more than the permissible quantity without the permit or licence. Before the respondent could be convicted for the offence charged, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the respondent was in actual and conscious possession of the licit liquor in excess of the prescribed limit." 2. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial evidence of eye-witness 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. 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 the 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 : 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. In view of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, there are major flaws in the investigation of the prosecution and prosecution story does not appear to be believable. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, there are major flaws in the investigation of the prosecution and prosecution story does not appear to be believable. 16. 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 otherwise appears to be based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record. 17. 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. 18. Case property, if not destroyed, be destroyed forthwith.