JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 14.10.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 10/2009 (RBT No. 94-2012) affirming JUDGMENT of conviction and sentence dated 28.3.2009 by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh passed in Cr. Case No. 424-1/07-36-II/2008, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioners/accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 148, 323, 325, 452 and 506 r/w S.149 IPC convicted and sentenced them as under: 1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each (with the stipulation in case of default in paying fine, 2 months simple imprisonment) 148 r/w 149 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500/- each and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month 323 r/2 149 1 year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of 500/- each in default of the payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months 325 4r/2 149 1 year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months 452 6 months simple imprisonment and to pay of fine Rs.500/- each and default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period fo 1 month 506 r/2 149 2. Precisely, the case of the prosecution, as emerges from the record is that on 23.9.2007, complainant Jindu Ram, PW-1, filed complaint, Ext. PW-1/A, alleging therein that on 23.9.2007, at about 9.30 am, while he was getting ready to go to school, he after having heard noise in the courtyard of his house, came to the door of his room and saw that the accused namely Rewat Ram, Neerat Ram, Kunj Lal, Ram Chand, paras Ram, Bati Devi, Bholi Devi, Gyan Chand and Joginder, were standing in the courtyard carrying dandas and sickles in their hands, whereas, accused Neerat Ram, Kunj Lal, and Ram Chadn were carrying darat in their hands and other accused were also carrying some weapons. Complainant alleged that when he was present on the door of house, all the accused firstly extended threats and thereafter, forcibly came to door of room and threw him in the courtyard. Complainant alleged that when he was present on the door of house, all the accused firstly extended threats and thereafter, forcibly came to door of room and threw him in the courtyard. Complainant alleged that firstly accused persons gave beatings to him with kicks and blows but, thereafter, they tried to attack him with sickle, however, he warded off the attack by getting himself back. When complainant was being attacked by the accused named herein above, son of complainant namely Khayali Ram reached the spot and accused persons also gave beatings to him with kicks and fist blows. Complainant also alleged that accused Neerat Ram, Kunj Lal, Ram Chand and Joginder while carrying dandas and sickles in their hands ran behind them and on account of beatings given by aforesaid persons, they suffered injuries on their heads, faces as well as other internal organs of their persons. 3. Prior to filing of complainant, Ext. PW-1/A, complainant had filed an application against accused persons at Patlikuhal but since no action was taken, on 23.9.2007, he presented the application/complainant Ext. PW-1/A to In charge Police Station Manali., on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-6/A came to be registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law. 4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 7 witnesses whereas, accused in their statements recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied the case of prosecution in toto and claimed that the police asked them to produce axe, sickle etc. after purchasing them from market. However, accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. On the basis of the evidence collected on record, learned trial Court held accused guilty of commission of the offences punishable under aforesaid provisions of law and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment, as detailed herein above. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the JUDGMENT of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.10.2012. In the aforesaid background, accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for their acquittal after setting aside impugned judgments/order of conviction and sentence. 6. In the aforesaid background, accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for their acquittal after setting aside impugned judgments/order of conviction and sentence. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis- -vis reasoning assigned by learned Courts below, while holding accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under aforesaid provisions of law, this court finds considerable force in the submissions of Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of the accused 7. Though, Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while making this court peruse the statements of prosecution witnesses made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that on the date of alleged incident, accused having found complainant alone in the house, not only extended threats to him but gave beatings also but, having carefully examined the entire evidence adduced on record, this Court does not see any reason to agree with the aforesaid submission made by Learned Deputy Advocate General. 8. Though, in the case at hand, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in all, but to determine correctness of the judgments impugned before this Court in the instant petition, statements of PW-1 Jindu Ram, PW-2 Khayali Ram, and PW-5 Kehar Singh only are material., who are otherwise closely related to each other, being father and sons. Though, in the case at hand, prosecution has tried to carve out a case that since no independent witnesses were available on account of apple season, they were unable to associate any independent witness but, it is none of the case of the prosecution that there was no house in and around the house of Khayali Ram, where he was allegedly attacked by the accused. Moreover, if the statement of PW-1, Jindu Ram recorded before the learned trial Court is perused juxtaposing his initial statement given to the police (Ext. PW-1/A), on the basis of which formal FIR Ext. PW-6/A, came to be recorded, entire case of prosecution falls to the ground. At the time of lodging of FIR, Ext. Moreover, if the statement of PW-1, Jindu Ram recorded before the learned trial Court is perused juxtaposing his initial statement given to the police (Ext. PW-1/A), on the basis of which formal FIR Ext. PW-6/A, came to be recorded, entire case of prosecution falls to the ground. At the time of lodging of FIR, Ext. PW-6/A, precise allegation levelled by the complainant was that on 23.9.2007, at 9.30 am, while he was going to school, to attend seminar, he after having heard noise, went near door of his house and there he saw accused namely Rewat Ram, Neerat Ram, Kunj Lal, Ram Chand, paras Ram, Bati Devi, Bholi Devi, Gyan Chand and Joginder, standing in the courtyard carrying dandas and sickles in their hands. Complainant at the first instance disclosed to the police that firstly accused named herein above extended threats to him and thereafter forcibly kicked the door of his room and pulled him out to courtyard of house and gave beatings. In the first version given to the police, complainant alleged that when he was being given beatings by accused named herein above, his son, Khayali Ram reached the spot and he was also given beatings. Complainant also disclosed to the police that on account of beatings given by accused, he suffered injuries on his head and face, however, complainant, while deposing as PW-1, in the trial court, gave altogether a different version wherein he stated that on 23.9.2007, at 9.30 am, while he was getting ready to go to school to attend seminar there, he heard noise and went to the door of his house and found that his son Khayali Ram was being given beatings by the accused and when he objected and tried to save his son, accused also gave him beatings with danda and sickles. This witness before the learned trial Court deposed that subsequently, his another son PW-5 Kehar Singh reached the spot and saved him as well as his son from the clutches of the accused. If aforesaid version given by the accused in the trial court is taken into consideration vis- -vis initial complaint given to the police, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-6/A came to be recorded, story put forth by prosecution becomes highly doubtful. 9. If aforesaid version given by the accused in the trial court is taken into consideration vis- -vis initial complaint given to the police, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-6/A came to be recorded, story put forth by prosecution becomes highly doubtful. 9. Pw-2 Khayali Ram, though has supported the version put forth by PW-1 in the court, but in his statement he contradicted PW-1 by stating that immediately after alleged incident, they went to Police Station to lodge report, whereas PW-1 in his statement given to the court deposed that after being attacked by accused, he and his son firstly went to the hospital. 10. Interestingly, in the case at hand, all the material prosecution witnesses are closely related to each other and no attempt whatsoever, has been made by the prosecution to associate the independent witnesses. Reasons rendered on record qua non-association of independent witnesses are not at all plausible. Prosecution has attempted to carve out a case that since at the time of alleged incident all the residents of the area were away to their orchards on account of apple season, none heard noise or cries if any made by the complainant and his son, while they were being attacked by the accused. But, such plea taken by the prosecution cannot be accepted on its face value for the reason that it is none of the case of the prosecution that the courtyard/house of the complainant, where they were allegedly attacked by the accused, was not surrounded by other houses, rather, photographs Exts. PA1 to PA5 adduced on record by the prosecution themselves suggest that the house and courtyard of the complainant is/are surrounded by a number of houses. It cannot be believed that all the residents of nearby houses had gone to apple orchards leaving their houses. Most importantly, it has come on record in the statement of PW-5 Kehar Singh that he and his uncle Bhag Chand, saved the complainant and injured Khyali Ram, from the clutches of the accused but, interestingly, neither complainant PW-1 nor injured PW-2 made any mention with regard to presence of Bhag Chand on the spot, while they were being attacked and given beatings by the accused. 11. 11. Pw-1, in his initial complaint given the police neither disclosed to the police that he was rescued by his son PW-5 Kehar Singh nor he stated that brother, Bhag Chand was also present on the spot. It is not understood that why Bhag Chand, was given up by the prosecution especially when he could be a material prosecution witness to prove the story put forth by the prosecution. 12. Though, Learned Deputy Advocate General contended that above named Bhag Chand was given up for the reason that prosecution had already examined three spot witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5, but, as has been taken note herein above, all the aforesaid three witnesses are closely related to each other and as such, prosecution ought to have examined Bhag Chand, being an independent witness. 13. No doubt, version put forth by interested witnesses, cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground of relationship, but by now it is well settled that evidence of interested witnesses is not to be accepted on face value, rather same is to be tested in light of probabilities and previous statement and surrounding circumstances. 14. In the instant case, if the aforesaid analogy is applied, the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5, could not be made basis by learned Courts below to conclude guilt of the accused. In this regard reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jit Singh and another, (1995) SCC(Cri) 156, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "3. The Division Bench of the High Court having examined the evidence of the two eyewitnesses came to the conclusion that they were highly interested witnesses and whether their presence can be accepted at all, is the question. P.W. 3 is in no way related to the deceased or to the P.W. 2. He gave an explanation for his visit to the tubewell along with P.W. 2 before the Police Station was to irrigate the land of PW 2 whereas in the present deposition he prevaricated and deposed that he went to the tubewell of the deceased to inform him about the collection of meagre amount of money for presenting the same to the contesting candidate. The High Court noticed that this prevarication shows that he has deliberately improved his version from stage to stage. The High Court noticed that this prevarication shows that he has deliberately improved his version from stage to stage. When interested witnesses are examined it is well settled that the evidence has to be tested in the light of the probabilities and the previous statements and the surrounding circumstances. We arc satisfied that their evidence does not inspire any confidence. In the F.I.R. it is stated that P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 went to irrigate the field from that tubewell water but while giving statements at the trial they deposed that only P.W. 2 was to irrigate the field by working the tubewell while P.W. 3 had accompanied him to the tubewell to meet the deceased as mentioned above. Their presence thus becomes doubtful from the fact that they have not come forward with a proper explanation for giving two versions. In these circumstances we cannot say that the High Court went wrong in ordering acquittal. These appeals are dismissed accordingly." 15. Interestingly, in the case at hand, this court having carefully examined entire evidence finds no allegation, if any, against the accused namely Banti Devi and Bholi Devi, save and except that they also had come to courtyard of house of complainant carrying dandas in their hands. If statement of PW-1 and PW-2 are read in conjunction, there is no allegation that the above named accused Banti Devi and Bholi Devi gave any kind of beatings to the complainant and injured but yet, learned Courts below merely on account of their presence on the spot proceeded to hold them guilty of having committed offences punishable under aforesaid provisions of law. 16. Interestingly, this court finds from the record that though prosecution charged accused with S.149 IPC, but not bothered at all to prove common object/common intention of the accused to cause harm to the complainant and his son. To invoke provisions contained under S.149 IPC, it is/was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that unlawful assembly had a common intention and they had common object but in the instant case, neither motive nor common intention inter se accused for attacking complainant and injured, have been established on record, rather, prosecution has attempted to carve out a case that there is old enmity inter se parties on account of litigation between the parties. By now it is well settled that plea of old enmity is a doubled edged weapon, it cannot be only used in favour of complainant rather, there is always a presumption that on account of old enmity, complainant may make an attempt to falsely implicate other party with a view to harass them. 17. Though, medical evidence adduced on record, which subsequently came to be proved on record with the statements of PW-3, Dr. Rakesh Negi MO, Community Health Centre Manali and PW-4 ML Bandhu, Zonal Hospital Kullu, suggests that complainant and his son Khayali Ram suffered injuries but since prosecution has not been able to connect accused with the injuries allegedly suffered by complainant and injured in the alleged incident, medical evidence, if any, adduced on record may not have much relevance. Moreover, cross-examination conducted upon aforesaid witnesses suggests that both the doctors have opined/stated in their examination that the injuries suffered by complainant and his son could be on account of fall on hard surface. 18. In the case at hand, accused, allegedly after having purchased danda, sickle and axe etc. handed over to police that too on 5.10.20007 i.e. after 12 days of alleged incident, whereas, recovery if any, was to be effected in terms of S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereby police after having recorded disclosure statement ought to have visited the spot where the accused had kept/hidden the weapons used by them to attack the complainant. 19. Reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 75 of 2005 titled Dev Raj alias Raj and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 22.5.2017, wherein it has been held as under: "14. Be that as it may, the prosecution was enjoined, with an obligation, to relate the user of Gupti by accused Dev Raj by its proving that its recovery at the instance of accused Dev Raj, stood efficaciously effectuated by the Investigating Officer, by the latter hence revering the mandate of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Be that as it may, the prosecution was enjoined, with an obligation, to relate the user of Gupti by accused Dev Raj by its proving that its recovery at the instance of accused Dev Raj, stood efficaciously effectuated by the Investigating Officer, by the latter hence revering the mandate of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer concerned, stood enjoined with a dire legal necessity "to prior to" effectuating recovery of the relevant weapon of offence, his during the course of holding the accused to custodial interrogation hence recording the disclosure statement of the accused, holding unfoldments therein qua the place of its concealment or hiding by him, necessity whereof stands cornered within the domain of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter also therein it stands propounded qua thereupon, an admissible besides a relevant custodial confessional statement of the accused assuredly making its emergence, in sequel whereto the subsequent recovery of the weapon of offence, at the instance of the accused, would hold immense evidentiary clout, contrarily when without preceding thereto, the apposite statutorily warranted custodial confessional disclosure statement of the accused remained unrecorded, thereupon any bald recovery of any weapon of offence by the investigating Officer at the instance of the accused, would be hence wholly naked nor would it be construable to be an admissible besides a relevant piece of incriminatory evidence vis- -vis the accused, significantly when the mandate of law warrants effectuation of the relevant recovery, at the instance of the accused not under a composite recovery memo rather warrants recording prior thereto, an admissible custodial disclosure statement of the accused. In other words, the recording of a disclosure statement of the accused by the Investigating officer prior to his effectuating, any recovery at the instance of the accused, is preemptory, its embodying the custodial confessional statement of the accused, omission to record whereof renders inconsequential besides inadmissible any recovery under a naked bald recovery memo." 20. Having minutely perused the evidence, be it ocular or documentary led on record by the prosecution, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the statements made by PW-1, PW-2 and P-5 could not be made basis to hold accused guilty, being totally contradictory. All the prosecution witnesses including complainant, with a view to improve their initial version, have made contradictory statements before learned Courts below. 21. All the prosecution witnesses including complainant, with a view to improve their initial version, have made contradictory statements before learned Courts below. 21. 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 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. 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." 22. 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 as such, learned Courts below have erred in law, while holding the accused guilty of the commission offences punishable under aforesaid provisions of law. 23. Consequently in view of detailed discussion made above present petition is allowed. Judgments/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. All the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are cancelled.