JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 16.06.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour, District Nahan, Himachal Pradesh in case No.1/2 of 2010/09 titled Gaurav Joshi & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned trial held respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 341,323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly acquitted them. 2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that complainant Jitender Kumar alongwith Mohd. Abid and Kira was going from Delhi Gate to popular Dhaba near Hindu Ashram Road, Nahan and at around 3.00 PM near Science Block, Nahan, accused Gaurav Joshi came on the road and stopped them. Allegedly, when accused Gaurav Joshi misbehaved with Kira, complainant interfered, but in turn accused Gaurav Joshi gave fist blow on his nose and Kira due to fear fled away from the spot, whereas Mohd. Abid also tried to patch up the matter, but yet accused Gaurav Joshi started giving beatings to him. Allegedly, accused Gaurav Joshi called his brother Saurabh and Kamal through telephone call and thereafter, all the accused started giving beatings to the complainant and Mohd. Abid, who subsequently were rescued by Dharam Pal, owner of the Dhaba and Nazir, who came on the spot after having heard their cries. Dharam Pal and Abid have taken the shops from the father of the accused Gaurav Joshi and Saurabh Joshi on rent and allegedly, accused gave beatings to the complainant and Mohd. Abid with a view to get the possession of the shop. In the aforesaid background, matter came to be reported to the police by the complainant and accordingly, FIR(Ex.PW1/A) under Sections 341, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the accused at police Station Nahan. 3. Police got Jitender Kumar and Mohd. Abid medically examined and procured MLCs Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B, wherein doctor opined injuries on the person of Mohd. Abid to be simple and on the person of Jitender as grevious in nature. 3. Police got Jitender Kumar and Mohd. Abid medically examined and procured MLCs Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B, wherein doctor opined injuries on the person of Mohd. Abid to be simple and on the person of Jitender as grevious in nature. After having completed investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, which having found prima-facie case against the accused charged them under Sections 341, 325 and 323 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 6 witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. CPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed trial. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the entire evidence led on record held accused not guilty 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court, vehemently argued that Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that prosecution successfully proved on record that on the date of alleged incident, accused, named in the FIR, gave beatings to the complainant as well as Mohd. Abid, which fact further came to be corroborated by another prosecution witnesses. 8. To the contrary, Mr. Ashok Tyagi, learned counsel representing the respondents-accused, while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal, submitted that it has come in the evidence that complainant alongwith Mohd. Abid stooped the accused and started applying Holi colour, but when it was objected by accused Gaurav Joshi, they gave him beatings. He further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and as such, rightly came to be discarded by learned trial Court, while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. Abid stooped the accused and started applying Holi colour, but when it was objected by accused Gaurav Joshi, they gave him beatings. He further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and as such, rightly came to be discarded by learned trial Court, while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel representing the respondents further stated that all the material prosecution witnesses including the complainant admitted factum of their having litigation with the accused for the eviction from the rented premises. 9. Having carefully scanned the entire evidence adduced on record by the prosecution vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and as such, no interference is called for. 10. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of PW-1, Jitender Kumar, PW-2, Nazir and PW-3, Mohd. Abid. As per PW-1, he alongwith Mohd. Abid had fallen in the drain after being hit by accused Gaurav Joshi, who was requested by him not to apply the Holi colours. PW-1, while denying that he alongwith Dharam Pal and Mohd. Abid had given beatings to the accused, admitted that accused are the owners of the shop of Dharam Pal and Dharam Pal had taken the shop on rent. 11. PW-2, Nazir deposed that at the time of giving beatings to the accused persons, they fell down on stairs and struck against the sharp edged wall. He deposed that he stopped Gaurav Joshi from applying Holi colour, but on his refusal, altercation took place and at the time of quarrel only accused was present on the spot. This witness deposed that accused quarreled with them for an half hour. 12. PW-3, Mohd. Abid, deposed that at the time of giving beatings to accused Gaurav, they had not fallen on the stairs and drain. He admitted that he is tenant of accused persons and Dharam Pal is running Dhaba, which is also owned by the accused persons. He also admitted that PW-1, Jitender is working in the Dhaba of Dharam Pal. PW-3, Mohd. Abid, deposed that at the time of giving beatings to accused Gaurav, they had not fallen on the stairs and drain. He admitted that he is tenant of accused persons and Dharam Pal is running Dhaba, which is also owned by the accused persons. He also admitted that PW-1, Jitender is working in the Dhaba of Dharam Pal. Though, PW-1 deposed that many people were going here and there and many shops after Holi were open, but yet no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record by the prosecution for not associating the other independent witnesses. 13. To the contrary, PW-2 deposed that while they were being given beatings, accused persons fell down on the stairs and struck against the sharp edged wall. There are material contradictions in the aforesaid material prosecution witnesses, which goes to the root of the case and creates doubt with regard to correctness of the version put forth by these witnesses. Interestingly, no witness from the adjoining shop ever came to be associated by the Investigating Officer during investigation, who further during his cross-examination also admitted that at the time of investigation, factum with regard to litigation interse accused Gaurav Joshi and Mohd. Abid and other persons had come to his notice. Once factum with regard to litigation interse accused and Mohd. Abid as well as Dharam Pal had come to the notice of the Investigation Officer, it was incumbent upon him to associate independent witnesses, who admittedly on account of Holi on the given date were present in large number. 14. Most importantly, person, namely Kira, who was allegedly on the spot along with the complainant and had actually fled from the spot, never came to be associated by the Investigating Officer during investigation and neither he was cited as prosecution witness. Above named Kira could have been most crucial witness on account of his being present on the spot, but for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, he was never cited him as witness. As per version given by PW-1 time of quarrel was 3.00 PM, but the Investigation Officer deposed that complainant had come to police Station at 12.00 noon. As per complainant quarrel had taken place due to Kira, but Kira has not been cited as witness in the present case, as has been observed hereinabove. As per version given by PW-1 time of quarrel was 3.00 PM, but the Investigation Officer deposed that complainant had come to police Station at 12.00 noon. As per complainant quarrel had taken place due to Kira, but Kira has not been cited as witness in the present case, as has been observed hereinabove. To the contrary, Investigating Officer chose to examine interested witnesses in the case. Since it is admitted fact that Jitender was working in the Dhaba of Dharam Pal, who is tenant of the accused persons and Mohd. Abid is also tenant of accused persons, Investigation Officer ought have associated independent witnesses to ascertain the truth. 15. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 can be said to be interested witnesses. No doubt, version put forth by interested witnesses cannot be brushed aside solely on account of their acquaintance or dispute, if any, with the accused, but at the same time version put forth by such witnesses need to be taken into consideration with utmost care and caution. Once it is apparent from the statements made by these witnesses that altercation had taken place interse complainant party and accused Gaurav Joshi on account of pouring Holi colours, coupled with the fact that counter allegation with regard to beatings given to the accused also came to be levelled, which is otherwise apparent from the statements made by the complainant party, version put forth by the prosecution witnesses rightly came to be discarded by the learned trial Court being doubtful. 16. Apart from above, if the statements made by material prosecution witnesses are read juxtaposing each other, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies and as such, same otherwise could not be made basis to hold accused guilty of their having committed offence punishable under Sections 341,323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC . 17. True, it is that minor contradictions and inconsistencies can be overlooked by the Court, but while ignoring such contradictions and inconsistencies, Court while placing reliance upon statements made by these witnesses need to ascertain whether there is any coherence and uniformity in the statements made by such witnesses. 17. True, it is that minor contradictions and inconsistencies can be overlooked by the Court, but while ignoring such contradictions and inconsistencies, Court while placing reliance upon statements made by these witnesses need to ascertain whether there is any coherence and uniformity in the statements made by such witnesses. There may be contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to time and place but if story of the prosecution becomes doubtful on account of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements made by the witnesses, version put forth by such witnesses cannot be made basis to hold accused guilty of their having committed offence punishable under relevant provisions of law. 18. 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. 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. 19. 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 respondent-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 19. 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 respondent-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in State of UP versus Ghambhir Singh & others, AIR 2005 (92) Supreme Court 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.” 20. Reliance is also placed on judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 418 , relevant para whereof is being reproduced herein below:- “11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Reliance is also placed on judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 418 , relevant para whereof is being reproduced herein below:- “11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. [Vide Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 ; Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ; Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 242 ].” 21. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment reported in Pawan Kumar and Kamal Bhardwaj versus State of H.P., latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1150 has also concluded here-in-below:- “25. Moreover, when the occurrence is admitted but there are two different versions of the incident, one put forth by the prosecution and the other by the defence and one of the two version is proved to be false, the second can safely be believed, unless the same is unnatural or inherently untrue. 26. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the manner of occurrence, as pleaded by the defence, is not true. The manner of the occurrence testified by PW-11 Sandeep Rana is not unnatural nor is it intrinsically untrue, therefore, it has to be believed. 27. Sandeep Rana could not be said to have been established, even if the prosecution version were taken on its face value. It was pleaded that no serious injury had been caused to PW-11 Sandeep Rana and that all the injuries, according to the testimony of PW-21 Dr. Raj Kumar, which he noticed on the person of Sandeep Rana, at the time of his medical examination, were simple in nature. 22. It was pleaded that no serious injury had been caused to PW-11 Sandeep Rana and that all the injuries, according to the testimony of PW-21 Dr. Raj Kumar, which he noticed on the person of Sandeep Rana, at the time of his medical examination, were simple in nature. 22. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court, which is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, no interference is called for and accordingly, same is upheld. Record of learned trial Court be returned forthwith. 23. The present appeal fails and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending application (s), if any.