JUDGMENT : 1. Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 11.2.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P., in case No.7-1 of 2007/12-II of 2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Vipin Kumar alias Bittu and others, whereby court below held respondents accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) not guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly acquitted them. 2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that complainant Raj Kumar (PW-1) in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., (Ex.PW1/A), alleged that on 6.10.2006, at about 9.10 AM, accused Vipin Kumar gave him beatings in his office on the pretext that he had given beatings to his son. He also alleged that after some time other accused namely, Vikas Soni, Naresh Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar alias Sanju also reached on the spot and started giving beatings to him with dandas, as a consequence of which, he suffered multiple injuries. Complainant also alleged that accused besides causing injuries to him, also destroyed articles lying in his office. Manager namely, Rekha Rani (PW-2) called the police. At the time of incident, person namely, Sharwan Kumar (PW-3) was also present on the spot among others. On the basis of aforesaid statement made by the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C, FIR (Ex.PW10/E), came to be lodged against the accused. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law. 3. The learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, charged them under Sections 451, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses, whereas despite sufficient opportunities accused failed to lead any evidence. However, accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed themselves to be innocent. On the basis of totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution, trial Court held accused not guilty for having committed offence punishable under sections 451, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly acquitted them. On the basis of totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution, trial Court held accused not guilty for having committed offence punishable under sections 451, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly acquitted them. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of the accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the trial court while acquitting the accused, this Court finds it difficult to agree with the contention of Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, all the accused despite their having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, came to be acquitted. This Court after having carefully perused the entire evidence led on record finds that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident complainant Raj Kumar (PW-1) was given beatings by the accused. During the case at hand, prosecution examined 10 witnesses in toto in support of its case, but statements made by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-10, are relevant for determining the correctness of the judgment passed by the Court below. 6. PW-1, Raj Kumar deposed in the Court that on 6.10.2006 while he was coming from Bazar after taking bricks from Brick-kiln. Accused Vipin Kumar alias Bittu, who has a shop of dry-cleaning asked him to give his clothes for dry-cleaning. PW-1 deposed that accused started making remarks against him by saying that the he had killed his mother. He also deposed that accused told him that he would be dealt with similarly as he has dealt with his mother. PW-1 deposed that thereafter he first went to his residence and later on came to the office and at that time Rekha Rani (PW-2) was in the office. At about 9-10 AM, accused persons came with dandas and gave beatings to him and his computer was also destroyed. This witness also deposed that other articles i.e. gold chain was lost and accused persons snatched sum of Rs. 200-300/- from him and his clothes were also torn. At about 9-10 AM, accused persons came with dandas and gave beatings to him and his computer was also destroyed. This witness also deposed that other articles i.e. gold chain was lost and accused persons snatched sum of Rs. 200-300/- from him and his clothes were also torn. This witness also deposed that his mobile was also taken by one of the accused Naresh Kumar. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that his statement was not recorded by the police regarding taking bricks from the brick-kiln. He also stated that he did not make statement to the police that he had gone to his residence and from there he had come to his office. However, this witness when was confronted with his previous statement, it was not previously so recorded. This witness stated in his cross-examination that he had told to the police that his mobile was snatched, however, on this point he was again confronted with his previous statement and such fact was not recorded. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that all his cases are on account of land dispute with his family members and he admitted that he remained in judicial custody for offence under Section 366 IPC. Besides above, this witness also admitted that case was instituted against him under Section 302 of IPC, as he had pushed his mother into the well. 7. PW-2, Rekha Rani corroborated the version put forth by PW-1 that at around 9-10 AM accused Bittu carrying danda in his hand entered the office of the complainant and gave beatings to him. In her cross-examination, she admitted that fighting was for about one hour. She also admitted that accused Naresh Kumar was witness in a case under Section 302 of IPC registered against the complainant. However, she feigned her ignorance with regard to beatings, if any, given by complainant Raj Kumar to the son of accused No.1. She admitted that she cannot say anything against the complainant because she has been working in the office of the complainant. She feigned her ignorance that the injuries were caused to the complainant on account of fall from the motorcycle. This witness also admitted that police took into possession Danda from the place of occurrence. However, she deposed that she does not remember whether recovery memo was signed by her or not. 8. She feigned her ignorance that the injuries were caused to the complainant on account of fall from the motorcycle. This witness also admitted that police took into possession Danda from the place of occurrence. However, she deposed that she does not remember whether recovery memo was signed by her or not. 8. PW-3, Sharwan Kumar i.e. sole independent witness nowhere supported the case of the prosecution and as such, he was declared hostile. He deposed that 5-6 years ago he was working as a mechanic of scooter and his workshop was near the office of complainant Raj Kumar, who was a property dealer. This witness deposed that he does not know anything about the case and his shop was closed. In his cross-examination, this witness denied that on 6.10.2006, at about 9-9.15 Am he was present in his workshop. He also denied all the suggestions put to him on behalf of the prosecution. In his cross-examination on behalf of the defence, this witness stated that complainant Raj Kumar generally remains under the influence of liquor and he generally falls from the motorcycle. 9. PW-5, Subhash Kumar stated that he does not remember the date and month when he had gone to serve tea to the police personnel. However, stated that when he had gone to serve tea to the police personnel, his signatures were obtained somewhere. This witness himself volunteered that the police personnel came to his shop for taking tea. He also stated that nothing was presented to the police by anyone. This witness was declared hostile. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that the prosecution was able to extract something contrary to what he stated in his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination by defence counsel, this witness admitted that complainant Raj Kumar had also grudge against the accused persons. He also stated that false case has been made at the instance of complainant Raj Kumar against the accused persons. 10. PW-10, Amar Singh, Retired Sub Inspector deposed that he was posted in the police Station after the death of SI Gopal Dass. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Avtar Singh, Photographer Ex.PW10/A. He also stated that investigation was conducted by Gopal Dass and he is familiar with the signature of Gopal Dass. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that there are lot of cases pending against the complainant Raj Kumar. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Avtar Singh, Photographer Ex.PW10/A. He also stated that investigation was conducted by Gopal Dass and he is familiar with the signature of Gopal Dass. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that there are lot of cases pending against the complainant Raj Kumar. He also admitted that in investigation, it did not come on record that articles in the office were destroyed by the accused persons. 11. If the statements made by aforesaid witnesses are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other, there cannot be any disagreement with the findings returned by the court below that are lot of inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. Statement made by PW-1, complainant is in complete contradiction with the statements made by other prosecution witnesses, rather his deposition made in the Court is totally contrary to the statement made by him under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Besides above, this Court finds that I.O. Gopal Dass, who had an occasion to investigate the case at first instance, had expired and as such, his statement could not be recorded. All the prosecution witnesses nowhere supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2, Rekha Rani specifically admitted in her cross-examination that since she is a employee of the complainant Raj Kumar, she cannot say anything against him. PW-3, Sharwan Kumar, so called independent witness cited by the prosecution totally denied the case of the prosecution and stated before the court below that nothing happened in his presence. PW-5, Subhash Kumar also stated that false case has been planted against the accused persons. No doubt, by way of adducing MLC Ex.PW7/A, which subsequently came to be proved by PW-7, Dr. Sandip Narula, prosecution made an attempt to establish a case against the accused that they gave injuries with danda on the person of complainant, but mere such finding in MLC cannot be said to be sufficient to hold accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, especially when there is no concrete evidence adduced on record by prosecution suggestive of the fact that accused herein entered the office of the complainant and gave him beatings. Rather PW-7, Dr. Sandip Narula in his cross-examination admitted that injuries on the person of complainant could be caused by fall etc. Rather PW-7, Dr. Sandip Narula in his cross-examination admitted that injuries on the person of complainant could be caused by fall etc. Since, majority of the prosecution witnesses admitted that complainant used to remain under the influence of liquor and usually used to fall from motorcycle, it can be safely presumed that he suffered injuries as opined in MLC Ex.PW7/A by falling down from the motorcycle. 12. 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 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.” 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. 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. 13. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law referred hereinabove, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by learned Court below, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on record and as such, same is upheld. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, alongwith pending application(s), if any.