The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency, and there must be a string that joins the evidence of all the witnesses, satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC., challenge has been laid to judgment dated 20.11.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2015, affirming the judgment of acquittal dated 14.5.2015, recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul-Spiti, at Kullu, H.P. in criminal case No. 97-I of 2008/151-II/2009, titled State of H.P. vs. Duni Chand and Ors., whereby the learned trial Court, held the respondents-accused not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that FIR Ext.PW1/A dated 20.9.2007, came to be lodged at the behest of the complainant Kaul Singh PW1, who alleged that on 19.12.2007, around 5:30 PM, he and Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Duryodhan, were going back to their houses after casting their votes for Vidhan Sabha and when they reached near Village Puin, accused persons formed unlawful assembly and wrongfully restrained them and started giving beatings to them. Complainant further alleged that accused persons were carrying "dandas" in their hands and on account of beatings given to the complainant, he sustained injuries on his head, whereas person namely Mahinder Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Ram sustained injury on his face and head. Allegedly, Mahender Singh, S/o Shri Duryondhan also sustained injury on his back. The complainant further reported to the police that Devinder Singh and Tara Chand saved them from the clutches of the respondents-accused. Police after completion of the investigation, presented the challan before the competent court of law, who on being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the accused persons, charged them under Sections 147, 341, 325 and 323, read with Section 149 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties held the accused persons not guilty of having committed aforesaid offences and accordingly, acquitted them.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below, present petitioner-Mahender Singh preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.11.2017, as a consequence of which, judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondents-accused after setting aside the judgments of acquittal recorded by the courts below.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.

6. Having carefully perused material available on record, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record by the prosecution vis-a-vis impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the courts below, this Court is not persuaded to agree with contention of Sh. Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come to the fore to the detriment of the present petitioner, who was allegedly given beatings on the alleged date of incident by the respondents-accused.

7. This Court further finds no force in the argument of learned counsel representing the petitioner that courts below misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the evidence led on record by the respective parties, rather this Court having carefully examined the evidence available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, the complainant as well as other persons were given beatings by the respondents-accused. If the statements of material prosecuti