ORDER : Instant criminal revision petition filed under Ss. 397 and 401 CrPC lays challenge to judgment dated 9.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Una in Cr. Appeal No. 9-X/2011, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.4.2011/18.4.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. (II), Una, in Cr. Case No. 13-II-08, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 201 IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused as under : Section Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine 279 IPC Four months simple imprisonment 500 One month simple imprisonment 337 IPC Four months simple imprisonment 500 One month simple imprisonment 201 IPC One month simple imprisonment 500 Seven days simple imprisonment 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 30.11.2007 at 5.55, a telephonic information was given to the Police Station Haroli by Medical officer, Community Health Centre, Horoli to the effect that a person, who suffered injuries in a vehicular accident has been brought to the hospital for treatment. In this regard Rapat No. 16, (Ext. PW-10/A) was recorded. HC Pawan Kumar, Police Station Haroli, recorded statement of Gurcharan Singh, injured, Ext. PW-1/B, under S. 154 CrPC, who alleged that on 13.11.2007, he was transporting grass on his bullock cart from his field to his house and at about 4.45 pm, a private bus (Rajindra Bus) came from Tahliwal side on very high speed, and struck against the bullock cart, which was moving on the left side of the road. He alleged that due to impact of the bus, bullock cart went off the road and he (complainant) suffered injuries on his right arm and other part of the body. He alleged that the driver of bus fled from the spot after alleged commission of crime. He averred that the complainant came to know about registration number of the bus as HP-67-0108. He alleged that the mishap occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, who was driving the bus at the relevant time in high speed. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, who being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused, served notice of accusation upon the accused, for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, who being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused, served notice of accusation upon the accused, for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 201 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereas, the accused in his statement recorded under S.313, denied the prosecution case in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led on record, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 279, 337 and 201 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given above. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below accused preferred an appeal in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Una, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 9.10.2012. In the aforesaid background accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned by learned Courts below, while holding accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 279, 337 and 201 IPC, this court finds sufficient reason to agree with learned counsel for the accused that both learned courts below have failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, findings to the detriment of accused have come to the fore. 7. PW-1 Guracharan deposed that he was carrying grass on his bullock cart. He deposed that he was moving on his own side i.e. left side of the road and in the meanwhile, a bus came at high speed from Tahliwal side and rammed into the bullock cart which was damaged. He deposed that he suffered injuries and accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. In his cross-examination this witness deposed that one wheel of bullock cart was on kacha portion of road. He denied that the bus was being plied in normal speed. He also denied that the bullock cart turned turtle as a stone came under its wheel. 8. In his cross-examination this witness deposed that one wheel of bullock cart was on kacha portion of road. He denied that the bus was being plied in normal speed. He also denied that the bullock cart turned turtle as a stone came under its wheel. 8. PW-7 Balwinder Singh, deposed that while he was going towards Haroli bazaar, a Rehra was coming from the front side. He deposed that bus was going from Palkwah to Una and one motor cycle came in front of the bus, because of which the accused swerved the bus and a side of the bus struck against the Rehra and it turned turtle. He deposed that he could not tell on account of whose fault, the collision resulted. This witness in his cross-examination admitted that the cart was on left side of the road. He also admitted that name of the bus driver was Surinder Kumar. This witness further admitted that the police visited the spot and got photographs clicked. This witness however, denied that the accused was driving the vehicle in high speed and mishap was the result of high speed of the bus. This witness admitted in his cross-examination that the cart was broken due to impact. He also admitted that the cart was taken into possession by the Police as per memo, Ext. PW-1/A and handed over to its owner. He denied that he was suppressing the truth to save the miscreant. This witness denied the portion Ext. PW-11/E of his statement made before the Police under S. 161 CrPC. In his cross-examination, this witness denied that the bus driver was at fault. 9. Another eye-witness, PW-8 Kashmiri Lal, deposed that at the relevant time he was working in his fields. A bus came from Palkwah side and hit the Rehra. The Rehra turned turtle and its rider fell down and got hurt. This witness deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. He also deposed that the bus was being driven in high speed. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that when the collision took place, he was cutting grass in his fields and he went to the spot, after hearing the noise. He denied that the accused was on wheels of the vehicle. 10. He also deposed that the bus was being driven in high speed. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that when the collision took place, he was cutting grass in his fields and he went to the spot, after hearing the noise. He denied that the accused was on wheels of the vehicle. 10. PW-5 Gulahsn Rai, owner of the bus deposed that he had employed the accused as a driver on his bus and documents of the vehicle were taken from him by the Police. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that he did not know that on the relevant day, his bus had struck against the bullock cart. He though admitted that the documents of the bus involved in the accident were produced by him before the police as per memo Ext. PW-3/A, which bears his signatures in red circle ‘B’. He denied specific portions of the statement (Ext. PW-11/H), made before the police at the time of investigation. 11. PW-11 HC Pawan Kumar, IO in his cross-examination stated that he did not record statement of any of the persons traveling in the bus as they had already left the spot. He denied that in fact a scooter had hit the cart and the bus did not strike the cart. 12. Since the statements made by PW-1, PW-5 PW-7, PW-8, and PW-11 are relevant for determining the guilt of the accused, statements made by other witnesses being formal, need not be taken into consideration at this stage. 13. Interestingly, in the case at hand, record reveals that the animal pulling cart did not suffer any injury. If it is so, very factum of accident is doubtful. As per persecution, bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner and it hit the Rehra due to which its rider fell down and Rehra turned turtle. None of the Prosecution witnesses stated anything specific with regard to the animal, which was pulling the cart, rather, it has come on record that the animal pulling the cart did not suffer any injury. It is otherwise unbelievable that the bullock cart hit by bus though turned turtle but no injury, if any was caused to the animal. Leaving everything aside, there is no mention by any of the material prosecution witnesses with regard to falling, if any, of the animal. 14. It is otherwise unbelievable that the bullock cart hit by bus though turned turtle but no injury, if any was caused to the animal. Leaving everything aside, there is no mention by any of the material prosecution witnesses with regard to falling, if any, of the animal. 14. PW-7 Balwinder Singh stated that one motor cycle came in front of the bus, as a result of which, accused turned the vehicle and side of bus struck against Rehra and same turned turtle. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that the defence was able to extract from this witness, any thing contrary to what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 15. Kashmiri Lal, PW-8, though stated that the bus came from Palkwah side and hit the Rehra, as result of which, it turned turtle but he admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of incident, he was cutting grass in his fields and he came to the spot after hearing noise. Once this witness had no occasion to see the accident with his own eyes, no weightage/credence can be given to this witness. 16. Spot map, Ext. PW-11/D, nowhere supports the prosecution case. Learned court below has specifically recorded in para 33 of the judgment that Exhibit PW-111/D was wrongly prepared and does not depict correct picture but same will not come to the rescue of the accused because he cannot be acquitted due to faulty investigation or fault on the part of police. In the case at hand, Ext. PW-11/D is most relevant document, especially when none of the prosecution witnesses has been able to specifically prove the negligence, if any, of the accused, save and except complainant. None of prosecution witnesses/so called independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. 17. Leaving everything aside, prosecution story has become highly doubtful for the reason that no injury has been shown to be caused to animal pulling the cart at the time of alleged accident. As per prosecution, bus hit the bullock cart from back side, as a consequence of which Rehra turned turtle but interestingly, the animal pulling cart neither fell on the ground nor suffered injury, which otherwise appears to be highly improbable, making entire prosecution story doubtful. 18. Though in the case at hand prosecution has placed on record MLC Exhibit (Ext. PW-9/A), which subsequently came to be proved by PW-9 Dr. 18. Though in the case at hand prosecution has placed on record MLC Exhibit (Ext. PW-9/A), which subsequently came to be proved by PW-9 Dr. AK Sharma, but since the prosecution has not been able to prove that the injuries suffered by complainant were on account of his cart being hit by the bus being driven by accused, same may not be of much help to the prosecution case. 19. 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. 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 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. 21. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds merit in the petition, which is accordingly allowed. Judgment dated 9.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Una in Cr. Appeal No. 9-X/2011 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.4.2011/18.4.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. (II), Una, in Cr. Case No. 13-II-08 are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offences framed against him. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 22. Case property, if not destroyed, be destroyed forthwith.