JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 20.11.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal case No.107-II/2004, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Sonu, whereby learned trial Court held respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and accordingly acquitted him. 2. Precisely, the case of the appellant-State, as has been highlighted in the appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, is that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result thereof, accused, who had given merciless beatings to the complainant in the presence of independent witnesses, has been wrongly acquitted. While making this Court peruse statements of PW-2, Sh. Parveen Kumar and PW-3, Sh. Partap Chand, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that prosecution has successfully proved on record that on the date of alleged incident, complainant was given severe beatings, as a result thereof, he suffered various injuries, which fact further came to be proved by PW-4, Dr. Ruby Bhardwaj. While referring to the statement of the complainant (PW-1), learned Additional Advocate General submitted that material prosecution witnesses categorically stated that accused had given beatings to the complainant on account of his having allegedly damaged the cassettes given to him by the accused. While referring to the cross-examination conducted upon prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that bare perusal of the same does not suggest that defence was able to extract anything contrary to what these witness stated in their examination-in-chief. 3. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, representing the respondent-accused, while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal, submitted that no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned trial court, while discarding the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 as they were not the witnesses on the spot. While referring to rapat Ex. PW6/A, which was duly proved on record by PW-6, Sh. Surinder Kumar, Mr. While referring to rapat Ex. PW6/A, which was duly proved on record by PW-6, Sh. Surinder Kumar, Mr. Sharma submitted that as per the initial statement given by the complainant he was allegedly rescued by some boys, who were standing near the shop, but interestingly, none of those boys ever came to be examined by the prosecution, rather prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined those persons, who had no occasion to witness the alleged incident with their own eyes. He further submitted that there are materials contradictions in the statement of complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C as well as before the learned trial Court, which go to the root of the prosecution case. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court has no hesitation to conclude that Court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and as such, there is no scope of interference. 5. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2004, at about 7.00 AM, complainant, Sh. Neetu Ram(PW-1), had gone to return the cassettes to the accused at his shop situate in village Ambari, but since shop was closed, complainant allegedly threw the cassette in the shop through the chink of the shutter and returned back. At about 3.00 PM, while he was going to his house, accused called him in the shop and asked him as to why he has thrown the cassette in such a manner, as it had been broken. The accused thereafter demanded a sum of Rs. 70/- from the complainant on account of the damage caused to the cassette. Since complainant refused to make the payment, allegedly accused assaulted him by giving him kick and fist blows. Complainant alleged that he was rescued by persons standing nearby and thereafter, he went to his house and subsequently to the hospital. At about 4.40 PM, complainant reached police post, Nagrota Bagwan and narrated the entire incident, as detailed hereinabove. Upon receipt of aforesaid complaint, police entered a rapat in daily Roznamcha, Ex. PW6/A and got the complainant medically examined from Dr. Ruby Bhardwaj (PW-4). At about 4.40 PM, complainant reached police post, Nagrota Bagwan and narrated the entire incident, as detailed hereinabove. Upon receipt of aforesaid complaint, police entered a rapat in daily Roznamcha, Ex. PW6/A and got the complainant medically examined from Dr. Ruby Bhardwaj (PW-4). Medical Officer found grevious injuries on this person, as is evident from MLC Ex.PW4/A. Copy of rapat was sent to police Station, Kangra, on the basis of which, FIR under Sections 323 and 325 IPC was lodged against the accused. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, which having found prima facie case against the accused, charged him under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. 7. Learned trial Court on the basis of the entire evidence led on record held accused not guilty 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 the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below. 8. Careful perusal of rapat Ex.PW6/A, which was duly proved by PW-6, Sh. Surinder Kumar, clearly reveals that at first instance, complainant had reported to the police that while he was being assaulted by the accused with kick and fist blows, he was rescued by two boys standing nearby. Complainant nowhere stated that his brother, Parveen Kumar PW-2 and PW-3, Sh. Partap Chand, were ever present at the spot of alleged incident. Interestingly, prosecution failed to examine two boys who had allegedly seen the accused giving beatings to the complainant, rather to prove its case, it examined PW-2, Parveen Kumar, brother of the complainant and PW-3, Partap Chand. PW-2, deposed that when he went in the shop of the accused, he found that accused Sonu was assaulting his brother after closing the shop. He also stated that PW-3, Sh. Partap Chand also came on the spot. PW-3, Sh. Partap Chand deposed that the accused was assaulting the complainant outside the shop and Parveen was confined by him inside the shop. He also stated that PW-3, Sh. Partap Chand also came on the spot. PW-3, Sh. Partap Chand deposed that the accused was assaulting the complainant outside the shop and Parveen was confined by him inside the shop. If the statements made by both the witnesses are read in conjunction, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Senior counsel representing the respondent-accused that same being contradictory could not have been relied upon to conclude the guilt, if any, of the accused. 9. PW-2, Parveen Kumar, stated that the incident was taking place inside the shop after pulling down the shutter, whereas PW-3, Partap Chand, stated that incident was taking place outside the shop. Since presence of both these witnesses at the spot is otherwise doubtful, coupled with the fact that they made contradictory statements, leaned court below rightly discarded the same. 10. Ex.PW6/A nowhere suggest that complainant had mentioned the names of aforesaid persons, rather he stated that two boys present at the spot had rescued him from being assaulted by the accused. 11. It is not understood that what prevented the complainant from disclosing the names of the said boys to the police. Neither any efforts ever came to be made by the police to find out the boys, who were allegedly present on the spot at the time of the alleged incident. Since presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at the spot is highly suspicious and doubtful, it cannot be concluded that accused gave beatings to the complainant for his having allegedly damaged the cassette. This Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the respondent-accused that prosecution with a view to prove its case, intentionally and purposely introduced PW-2 and PW-3, who otherwise failed to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 12. As per the prosecution case, complainant firstly went to his house and thereafter reached police post, Nagrota Bagwan. Had these two witnesses actually been present with the complainant at the time of alleged incident, the complainant would have straightway gone with them to the police Station concerned. It becomes clear from rapat Ex.PW6/A that complainant had gone alone to the police post. Had these two witnesses actually been present with the complainant at the time of alleged incident, the complainant would have straightway gone with them to the police Station concerned. It becomes clear from rapat Ex.PW6/A that complainant had gone alone to the police post. Alleged incident was witnessed by the persons, who were never produced in the Court and therefore, it can be inferred that persons actually present at the spot were not willing to support the prosecution case and as such, prosecution introduced two persons, who otherwise had no firsthand knowledge with regard to the incident. 13. Though, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that statement of the complainant is sufficient to conclude the guilt of the accused, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with him for the reason that complainant made two different statements. While lodging the complaint, he stated that at the time of alleged incident, two boys, who were present on the spot, rescued him, whereas in his statement recorded in the Court he introduced new story by stating that PW-2 and PW-3 came on the spot to rescue him. Version put forth by PW-2 and PW-3 is totally contrary to the initial statement of the complainant, as recorded in rapat Ex.PW6/A on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered. These material contradictions go to the root of the prosecution case and render the testimony unreliable. 14. True it is that prosecution, while leading medical evidence on record, succeeded in proving injury on the person of the complainant, which as per MLC Ex.PW4/A was opined to be grevious in nature, but once prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries suffered by the complainant were inflicted by the accused, opinion given in the MLC Ex.PW4/A does not materially advance the case of the prosecution. 15. 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 his having committed offence punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC. 16. True, it is that minor contradictions and inconsistencies can be overlooked by the Court, but, while ignoring such contradictions and inconsistencies, Court need to ascertain whether there is any coherence and uniformity in the statements made by such witnesses. 16. True, it is that minor contradictions and inconsistencies can be overlooked by the Court, but, while ignoring such contradictions and inconsistencies, Court 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 his having committed offence punishable under relevant provisions of law. 17. 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. 18. 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. 18. 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.” 19. 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 ].” 20. 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. 21. 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. 21. 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. 22. The present appeal fails and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending application (s), if any.