JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., challenge has been laid to judgment dated 25.9.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 13-G/VII-2009, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter, 'accused) came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years for having committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that accused herein faced trial under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 and 307 IPC in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., on the allegation that on 25.2.2008, at about 8/8.30 PM, accused alongwith other co-accused, who otherwise stand acquitted vide impugned judgment under challenge, gave beatings to persons namely, Peeyush Sharma and Anuj Sharma, respectively. Person namely, Rakesh Kumar telephonically informed PW-1, Manu Sharma, that Peeyush Sharma is being given beatings by accused herein alongwith other accused, where after above named Manu Sharma with his brother Anuj Sharma reached the spot and tried to rescue Peeyush Sharma, but they were also given beatings. Allegedly, the accused herein hit soda water bottle on the head of Anuj Sharma and stomach/ abdomen of Peeyush Sharma, as a consequence of which, they both suffered serious injuries. Injured persons were got medically examined at CHC Jwalamukhi and simultaneously, FIR No. 28, dated 19.7.2010, Ext. PW-13/A came to be recorded against the accused and other co-accused on the complaint having been made by PW-1, Manu Sharma. After completion of the investigation, Police presented challan in the trial Court, who being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused herein and other co-accused, proceeded to frame charge against them under the aforesaid provisions of law, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused in their statements recorded under S.313 Cr.P.C., denied the case of prosecution in toto and also examined two witnesses in their defence. Learned trial Court on the basis of totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution though acquitted co-accused namely, Anoop Kumar, Rajesh Goswami, Gulshan Sharma, Ajit Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Ishant Sharma, Shammi Sood and Hanish Sharma, but convicted the present accused and sentenced him to undergo SI for four years for having committed offence punishable under S. 307 IPC. Learned trial Court on the basis of totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution though acquitted co-accused namely, Anoop Kumar, Rajesh Goswami, Gulshan Sharma, Ajit Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Ishant Sharma, Shammi Sood and Hanish Sharma, but convicted the present accused and sentenced him to undergo SI for four years for having committed offence punishable under S. 307 IPC. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking his acquittal after setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by trial Court. 4. Ms. Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel representing the accused, while making this court to peruse the evidence adduced on record vis-a-vis judgment of conviction recorded against accused, vehemently argued that aforesaid judgment is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. While making this Court to peruse the statements having been made by material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-7, Ms. Vyas made serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with her contention that learned court below while determining the guilt, if any, of the accused has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings to the detriment of accused have come to the fore. Ms. Vyas, while reading the statements of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, vehemently argued that it stands duly established on record that fight inter se complainant party and accused came to be started at the instigation of complainant party, especially PW-4, Peeyush Sharma. She further stated that it has clearly come in the evidence that accused Harish Kapoor was given merciless beatings in the open Bazaar, where after, he with a view to defend himself, also gave beatings to the person namely, Peeyush Sharma, PW-4. While referring to the statements of PW-6 and PW-7, Ms. Vyas contended that it was the accused, who at the first instance was pushed by the complainant party, as a consequence of which, he suffered severe head injury and as such, learned trial Court, while holding the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.307 IPC, has miserably failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, great prejudice has been caused to the accused. Ms. Ms. Vyas further contended that impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court is otherwise not sustainable because on similar set of facts and evidence, other co-accused have been let off and no cogent and convincing reasons, if any, have been assigned in the judgment of conviction recorded against the accused. While referring to Ext. DW-1/A, i.e. daily diary report, Ms. Vyas contended that it was the accused, who at 8.40 PM, on the date of alleged incident, lodged a complaint at PS Jwalamukhi, whereas, FIR Ext. PW-13/A at the behest of PW-1, Manu Sharma, came to be registered on the next date, and as such, it can be safely inferred that the complainant party, which had actually given beatings to the present accused, solely with a view to defend themselves, lodged false counter FIR against the accused. Ms. Vyas further argued that there is no explanation, worth the name, led on record by the prosecution with regard to injuries suffered by accused. She also contended that motive, if any, to give beatings to the complainant party by the accused has not been established anywhere and as such, in the given facts and circumstances, it could be easily inferred by learned trial court that FIR, Ext. PW-13/A, is nothing, but a counter blast to the complaint lodged by accused. Lastly, Ms. Vyas contended that as per own statements of material prosecution witnesses hundred of people had gathered on the spot at the time of alleged incident, but interestingly no efforts was made by Investigating Officer to associate independent witnesses and as such, version put forth by PW-1 to PW-5, who otherwise are involved in the incident could not have been given much credence by the court below while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. 5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction recorded against the accused, strenuously argued that bare perusal of evidence available on record, clearly reveals that accused Harish Kapoor not only gave blow of Soda bottle on the head of PW-3, Anuj Sharma, who happened to be brother of PW-1, rather he also struck soda water bottle in the abdomen of Peeyush Sharma. Learned Additional Advocate General, while making this court to peruse the statements of prosecution witnesses contended that no parity, if any, can be claimed by accused vis-a-vis other accused, especially when there is overwhelming evidence available on record to the effect that grievous injuries were inflicted on the persons of Anuj Sharma and Peeyush Sharma by accused Harish Kapoor. While admitting that first report qua the incident was lodged by the accused, Mr. Bhatnagar contended that since person namely Peeyush Sharma and Anju Sharma had suffered severe injuries, it could not be expected from them to lodge report first, rather at that time priority of the complainant, who happened to be brother of one of the victim, was to get them treated at hospital. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that though version put forth by prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 cannot be ignored being eye witnesses, but even otherwise record reveals that prosecution also associated independent witnesses in the shape of PW-5 to PW-7. 6. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and carefully perused the record. 7. Having carefully examined aforesaid arguments/ submissions having been made by learned counsel for the parties, vis-a-vis judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, this court finds that FIR in the case came to be lodged at the behest of Manu Sharma, who happened to be brother of Anuj Sharma. Above named PW-3, Anuj Sharma was also allegedly inflicted injuries on his head by accused with soda water bottle. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the statements having been made by PW-6 and PW-7, wherein they have stated that at the time of alleged incident, they were present in front of their shops and after having heard noise, they reached the spot and found some boys using filthy language against each other. It has come in the statement of PW-6, Shiv Goswami that group of boys quarrelled with each other and some of the boys were injured, out of which, one Harish Kumar (accused) also sustained injuries. This witness in his cross-examination fairly admitted that at the time of alleged incident persons namely, Anuj Sharma (PW-3), Rakesh Kumar, PW-2 and Peeyush Sharma, PW-4, were also present. This witness in his cross-examination fairly admitted that at the time of alleged incident persons namely, Anuj Sharma (PW-3), Rakesh Kumar, PW-2 and Peeyush Sharma, PW-4, were also present. It has come in his cross-examination that when he reached Just outside the Neelkanth Juice Corner, he saw accused Harish Kapoor lying on the road and blood also oozed out from his head. He also stated that he took Harish Kapoor to CHC Jawalamukhi. It clearly emerge from the statement of the aforesaid witness, who had otherwise no association with the either of the party that at the time of alleged incident, prosecution witnesses namely Manu Sharma, Rakesh Kumar, Anuj Sharma and Peeyush Sharma, were present on the spot and they had some fight/altercation with accused Harish Kapoor and other co-accused namely, Anup Kumar. If version of this witness, who otherwise is independent witness, is taken into consideration, it really creates serious doubt with regard to correctness of story put forth by the prosecution that accused gave beatings to persons namely, Anuj Sharma(PW-3) and Peeyush Sharma( PW-4). As per aforesaid witness, he saw accused lying on the road and thereafter he took him to the Hospital i.e. CHC Jwalamukhi. He in his cross-examination admitted that he did not see anybody else hitting him with the soda bottle. Similarly, if version put forth by Sh. Partap Singh (PW-7) is perused, it also reveals that on the date of alleged incident, at 8.30 PM, fight took place between two groups. It has come in his examination-in-chief that when quarrel took place, accused fell down on the counter of his shop. He also stated that one bottle of soda was found missing from his shop and same was seen in the morning. This witness in his cross-examination conducted by public prosecutor admitted that accused hit bottle in the stomach of PW-4, Peeyush Sharma, but denied that he lifted injured boy from the spot. However, cross-examination conducted upon this witness by defence counsel reveals something totally different. In his cross-examination, conducted by defence counsel, this witness also admitted that at the time of alleged incident, PW-4, Peeyush Sharma was also with Anuj Sharma (PW-3), meaning thereby prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 were together at the time of alleged incident. However, cross-examination conducted upon this witness by defence counsel reveals something totally different. In his cross-examination, conducted by defence counsel, this witness also admitted that at the time of alleged incident, PW-4, Peeyush Sharma was also with Anuj Sharma (PW-3), meaning thereby prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 were together at the time of alleged incident. It has also come in his cross-examination that above named persons pushed accused against iron counter of his shop and his head struck against iron counter, as a consequence of which, he sustained injuries, on his head. He also admitted that he saw blood oozing out from the head of accused. This witness also admitted that at the time of alleged incident, around 200 people had gathered in front of his shop in the market. This witness specifically stated in his cross-examination that he did not see accused hitting Anuj Sharma and Peeyush Sharma with soda bottle. This witness further admitted that accused after having sustained injuries on his head went out of control. This witness also admitted that accused Harish Kapoor along with other co-accused Anup Sharma was got examined at CHC Jwalamukhi. Though, this witness was declared hostile, but one thing is quite apparent from the version put forth by this witness that at the time of alleged incident, PW-1 to PW-4 were together and at the first instance, they pushed accused, as a consequence of which, he suffered injuries on his head. No doubt, statement having been made by aforesaid witness, suggests that accused herein also gave blow of soda water bottle on the head of PW-3, Anuj Sharma, but one thing, which clearly emerges from the statements of PW-6 and PW-7 is that PW-1, Manu Sharma, at whose instance FIR Ext. PW-13/A came to be lodged against accused and other co-accused was also present on the spot and as such, version put forth by him that he having received information from PW-2, reached the spot cannot be believed rather appears to be concocted one. 8. Similarly, version put forth by PW-2, Rakesh Kumar cannot be said to be reliable and worth credence because he himself was party to the fight, which ultimately took an ugly turn. 8. Similarly, version put forth by PW-2, Rakesh Kumar cannot be said to be reliable and worth credence because he himself was party to the fight, which ultimately took an ugly turn. As has been noticed hereinabove, fight inter se accused and Anuj Sharma took place at Jwalamukhi on the date of alleged incident with one group, comprising of PW-1 to PW-4 and as such, this court is in total agreement with Ms. Vyas, learned counsel for the accused that no much reliance could have been placed by the court below on version put forth by these witnesses being totally interested witnesses. No doubt, version put forth by interested witness cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground of non-association of independent witnesses, but versions put forth by such witness are required to be taken into consideration with utmost caution because they keeping in view their relation with the victim or injured, may not come with true facts. 9. Pw-6, Shiv Gosawami i.e. shopkeeper has categorically stated that fight took place between two groups and he saw accused lying on the road. He also stated that blood was oozing out from head of accused Harish Kapoor and he took him to the hospital. He has nowhere stated that he saw accused Harish Kapoor giving blow of soda water on the head of Anuj Sharma and stomach of Peeyush Sharma, rather he in his cross-examination admitted that he after having seen accused lying on the road took him to the hospital, where after on the next day he came to know that FIR has been lodged by the complainant Manu Sharma (PW-1) that accused has given beatings to PW-3, Anuj Sharma and PW-4, Peeyush Sharma. 10. Having carefully examined the evidence led on record, this Court is fully convinced and satisfied that prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 were actually present on the spot and they had participated in the fight allegedly took place inter se them and accused Harish Kapoor and as such, by no stretch of imagination, they can be termed to be independent witnesses, rather, they all are interested witnesses. If version put forth by these witnesses is tested /analyzed vis-a-vis version given by independent witnesses associated by prosecution i.e. PW-6 and PW-7, story put forth by the prosecution deserves outright rejection being wholly untenable and could not have been trusted by court below. 11. If version put forth by these witnesses is tested /analyzed vis-a-vis version given by independent witnesses associated by prosecution i.e. PW-6 and PW-7, story put forth by the prosecution deserves outright rejection being wholly untenable and could not have been trusted by court below. 11. Learned court below merely on the statements having been made by PW-1 to PW-4, proceeded to hold that there is overwhelming evidence suggestive of the fact that accused inflicted injuries on the head and stomach of PW-3 and PW-4, whereas evidence available on record reveals that it was complainant party i.e. PW-2 to PW-4, which started the fight and gave beatings to accused Harish Kapoor, who suffered head injury. As has been noticed hereinabove, it has specifically come in the statements of prosecution witnesses that many people had gathered on the spot and incident took place in Bazaar, but it is not understood that why Investigating Officer failed to associate people from the local bazaar when they were available in abundance. Investigating Officer in the case at hand, only chose to associate prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-4, who in one way or the other were party to the incident. On the other hand, two independent witnesses associated from Bazaar, nowhere supported the case of the prosecution, rather version put forth by them completely belies the story of the prosecution and as such, court below has fallen in grave error while placing undue reliance upon the statements of PW-1 to PW-4, who by no stretch of imagination can be termed as independent witnesses rather, they were named as accused in the case sought to be lodged by accused Harish Kapoor. 12. Ext. DW-1/A i.e. daily diary, which is not in dispute clearly reveals report with regard to alleged incident at the first instance came to be lodged at the behest of the accused, who allegedly after having suffered injuries was taken to CHC, Jwalamukhi by PW-6, Shiv Gosawami. Interestingly, no action, if any, ever came to be initiated on the aforesaid report made by the accused, which was admittedly filed on the date of alleged incident on 24.2.2008, whereas, FIR Ex. PW13/A, which came to be lodged on next day, was taken to its logical end by Investigating Officer. 13. Interestingly, no action, if any, ever came to be initiated on the aforesaid report made by the accused, which was admittedly filed on the date of alleged incident on 24.2.2008, whereas, FIR Ex. PW13/A, which came to be lodged on next day, was taken to its logical end by Investigating Officer. 13. No doubt, version put forth by the interested witnesses, if any, cannot be brushed aside solely on account of non-association of independent witness, but in the case at hand, it clearly emerge from the evidence available on record that prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-4 themselves participated in the quarrel allegedly took place between the accused and complainant party. Moreover, evidence available on record clearly suggests that more than 200 people had gathered on the spot at the time of alleged incident, but there is no explanation, worth the name, rendered on record by the Investigating Officer that why he only chose to examine PW-1 to PW-4, ignoring independent witness, who were available in abundance. Since in the case at hand, version put forth by PW-1 to PW-4 being interested witnesses, appears to be highly doubtful, non-association of independent witnesses, who were otherwise available in abundance, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Avtar Singh and others, (2019) 2 ShimLC 738 , wherein it has been held as under:- "10. True, it is that version put forth by the prosecution witnesses, if any, cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground of non-association of the independent witnesses, but in the case at hand story put forth by the complainant does not inspire confidence, rather same appears to be concocted one and as such, non-association of independent witnesses, especially when they were available in the abundance, is fatal to the prosecution case." 14. There is no explanation, worth the name, with regard to injuries suffered by accused and similarly, no effort, if any, ever came to be made on behalf of the Investigating Officer to ascertain motive, which led to fight inter se accused and complainant party. Learned counsel representing the accused placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramniwas and another,2018 AllSCR(Crl) 362 , wherein it has been held as under:- "7. Learned counsel representing the accused placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramniwas and another,2018 AllSCR(Crl) 362 , wherein it has been held as under:- "7. It appears that prosecution has failed to explain those injuries sustained by the accused in the same incident. In this situation, the factor that weakness prosecution case is that the prosecution witnesses have confined their statements only to the injuries sustained by the complainant group and denied that accused also received injuries in the same incident and thereby suppressed material facts of the incident and the part played by some of them in the incident, thereby casing a doubt on their credibility. (See:- Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 & Bhagwan Sahai and another versus State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2301 of 2016). 15. Injuries suffered by the accused stand duly proved on record with the statement of PW-9, Dr. BM Sharma, who in his statement categorically stated that on 24.2.2008, at about 9.25 PM, he had examined accused Harish Kapoor with the alleged history of scuffle. If description given by this witness qua the injury suffered by accused is perused, factum with regard to infliction of injury on the head of accused on account of his being hit against the counter of PW-7, Partap Singh by complainant party stands duly established on record. It stands duly established on record that complainant party PW-1 to PW-4 started fight and thereafter pushed accused, as a consequence of which, he suffered injury on his head. 16. Pw-6, Shiv Gosawami in his statement stated that he saw accused lying on the road and blood also oozed out, where after he took him to CHC, Jwalamukhi and as such, version put forth by PW-1 and PW-5 that they saw accused Harish Kapoor inflicting blow of soda bottle on head and stomach of PW-3 and PW-4 appears to be concocted one, especially in view of the fact that report qua the alleged incident on behalf of the complainant party came to be lodged after lodging of the report by the accused. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there appears to be force in the arguments of Ms. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there appears to be force in the arguments of Ms. Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused that FIR, Ex.PW13/A at the behest of Manu Sharma, came to be filed as counter blast to the initial report submitted by the accused, which otherwise was never taken to its logical end by police for the reasons best know to it. 17. No doubt, medical evidence adduced on record suggests infliction of grievous injuries on the persons of PW-3 and PW-4, but since there is no positive evidence, worth the name, available on record to connect the accused with the injuries suffered by PW-3 and PW-4, medical evidence, if any, adduced on record may not be of any help to the prosecution. 18. Leaving everything aside, if version put forth by all the material prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-7 are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other, there appears to be major contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to cause of fight and infliction of injuries on the persons of PW-3 and PW-4 by the accused and as such, no much reliance could have been placed on the same by the learned trial Court while holding accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, especially when he on the same set of evidence proceeded to acquit other co-accused namely Anup Sharma. 19. 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. 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 : 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." 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. 20. In the case at hand, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and as such, no conviction could be based upon the same. 21. 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 petitioners- accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 21. 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 petitioners- accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioners-accused has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of UP versus Ghambhir Singh & others, (2005) AIR SC 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. 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." 22. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees valid reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, which does not appears to be based upon the correct appreciation of evidence as well as law on the point and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees valid reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, which does not appears to be based upon the correct appreciation of evidence as well as law on the point and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and judgment passed by the learned Court below is quashed and set-aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The bail bonds of the accused are discharged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-accused be refunded to him. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.