JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant appeal having been filed by the appellant- State, lays challenge to the judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur District at Reckong Peo, HP in Police Challan No. 43-2 of 2006, whereby learned Court below held respondent-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’), not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Ss. 323, 451 and 506 IPC. 2. In nutshell, story of the prosecution as emerges from the record, is that on 22.6.2006, at about 7 am in Village Pangi, accused came to the roof of the house of Sartal Singh PW-1 (complainant) and gave beatings to him with Danda and at that time the accused was under the influence of liquor. Accused is stated to have caused injuries to the complainant, PW-1 on the thumb of his left hand. Matter was reported to the police. Police visited the spot and referred the injured for medical treatment. Investigation was completed and Challan presented in the competent Court of law for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 323, 45 and 506 IPC. Learned trial Court, on being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, charged him under the aforesaid provisions, to which the accused 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 recorded under S.313 CrPC denied the case of the prosecution in toto. However, accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, held that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted him. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for conviction of the accused after setting aside impugned judgment of acquittal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment of acquittal, this court finds no force in the arguments of Mr. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment of acquittal, this court finds no force in the arguments of Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General that the learned Court below, while acquitting accused failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the day of alleged incident, accused gave beatings, if any, to the complainant, as a consequence of which, he suffered injuries. 5. PW-1 Sartal Singh deposed that on 22.6.2006 at about 7 am, accused under the influence of liquor, came to the roof of his house and gave beatings to him with Danda, causing injuries to the thumb of his left hand. On hearing his cries, Krishan Kumar, his brother and Byas Devi, came to the spot and saved him from the clutches of accused. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he and accused are brothers and there are 10-15 houses situate near the house of the complainant. 6. PW-2 Krishan Kumar and PW-3 Byas Devi, though supported the case of the complainant and stated in their examination-in-chief that the accused gave beatings to the complainant with Danda, but if cross-examination conducted on these witnesses is read juxtaposing each other, it certainly compels this Court to draw an inference that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements, as such, same could not be pressed into service by the learned Court below, while recording guilt, if any, of the accused. 7. PW-2 Krishan Kumar stated that on 21.6.2006, he was present in the house and on the next day at about 7 am, accused after coming to their roof called them “dogs” and “Thieves” and dared them to come out from the house and gave beatings with Danda to Sartal Singh. PW-3 Byas Devi stated that on hearing shouts of the accused Raj Kumar, they came out and saw that accused was giving beatings to her husband Sartal Singh. Complainant Sartal Singh and PW-2 Krishan Kumar are real brothers, who are living in common marriage with Byas Devi. 8. PW-4 Ashok Kumar is an independent witness, who was declared hostile by the prosecution. Complainant Sartal Singh and PW-2 Krishan Kumar are real brothers, who are living in common marriage with Byas Devi. 8. PW-4 Ashok Kumar is an independent witness, who was declared hostile by the prosecution. However, cross-examination conducted on this witness nowhere suggests that the prosecution was able to extract something advantageous to its case. 9. PW-5 Labh Chand stated that on 21.6.2006, he was called by Sartal Singh, who informed that the accused dismantled his house causing cracks in his house. He visited the house of Sartal Singh and noticed some cracks on the plaster of walls in the house. This witness further stated that the accused was not present on the spot. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that the common wall of the house was found intact and no damage was caused to the house. Most importantly, this witness in cross-examination stated that parents of accused filed a case against Byas Devi (PW-3), who is common wife of Sartal Singh and Krishan Kumar. 10. PW-7, Dr. Rakesh Kumar medically examined the injured and found injuries on his person as per MLC Ext. PW- 7/A. However, in his cross-examination, this witness admitted that the injuries mentioned in the MLC can be caused by fall. 11. It is not understood that when it has specifically come in the evidence especially in the statements of witnesses that there are 10-15 houses situate near the house of complainant, why prosecution failed to associate independent witnesses, more specifically when incident is of morning time i.e. 7 am. In the case at hand, all the material prosecution witnesses are related to each other as such, version put forth by them is required to be taken into consideration with utmost caution, while determining guilt, if any, of the accused. No doubt, statements, if any, made by interested witnesses cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground of non-association of independent witnesses, but, in the case at hand, where it stands duly proved that that the accused and complainant are inimical to each other and they are closely related also, version put forth by interested witnesses cannot be relied in the absence of any corroborative evidence, if any, led on record by the prosecution in the shape of independent witnesses. Leaving everything aside, statements of material prosecution witnesses clearly reveal that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies. 12. Leaving everything aside, statements of material prosecution witnesses clearly reveal that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies. 12. Close scrutiny of statements of the material prosecution witnesses compels this court to conclude that no reliance, if any, could be placed by the learned Court below on the statements made by prosecution witnesses, being contradictory and inconsistent with each other, as such, learned Court below rightly did not place reliance upon the same, while ascertaining guilt, if any, of the accused. 13. 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. 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 Supreme Court Cases 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.” 14. Though, the medical evidence led on record by the prosecution, suggests that the complainant suffered injury on his thumb but there is no positive evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to connect accused with the alleged beatings, if any, given on the person of the complainant, as such, mere placing of MLC Ext. PW-7/A may not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 15. This Court also finds that all the witnesses associated by the Police in support of its case are interested witnesses, as such, version put forth by the complainant and prosecution witnesses is required to be scrutinized with utmost care and the same cannot be made basis for conviction especially when no cogent and convincing evidence has been led on record in support of the versions put forth by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom are interested witnesses. 16. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with judgment passed by the learned trial Court, 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.