JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J —The sole question for determination of this Court is, whether the respondent who was initially the accused in the trial Court, is the perpetrator of the crime under sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Lily, daughter of Smt Putli (PW 2) is the Injured. Sukh Ram (PW 1) is her father, and husband of (PW 2). On June 20, 1987, at about 5?0p m said Lily alongwith her mother is alleged to ^e crossing the road at Shogi Bazar. Ram Kali another wife of Sukh Ram (PW 1) was fetching water from the tap at the material time. Lily aforesaid is said to have been hit by vehicle registered as taxi HPZ 484 allegedly rash and negligent driving of respondent Sudarshan Singh Resultantly, the injured fell on the road and sustained injuries on her person Nose started bleeding and there was a minor but grievous injury on the head too. She was medically examined by Dr. Sudha Prakash who indicated the injuries so sustained vide medical certificate Ex. PW 6/C. 3. PW 1 lodged the report to the police regarding the incident and a criminal case was registered against the accused, for the commission of the above said offences. During investigation, spot was visited, the site plan was prepared and statements of the various witnesses were recorded. On completion thereof, the accused was prosecuted. 4. The accused owned the fact that he was the driver of the taxi at the material time but he denied the other allegations and thus pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried In his statement under section 313, Cr. P C he raised a defence of denial simpliciter except admitting the factum of driving the aforesaid vehicle The learned Court below on appraisal of evidence finding the testimony of various prosecution witnesses to be of divergent nature and also the possibility of the injuries sustained by the injured by fall, recorded the impugned order of acquittal which has been appealed against by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the instant appeal. 5. Shri R K. Gautam, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued at length. 5. Shri R K. Gautam, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued at length. His submission is that no other vehicle was being driven at the material time except that of the accused and thus the injuries suffered by Lily in the manner stated by the prosecution, are positively proved by the testimony of PWs 1 to 3, 5, 7 when read with the mechanical report Ex PW 8/A and medical certificate Ex. PW 6/C. It is pointed out that the girl was hail and hearty prior to the occurrence and was playing there Immediately after the crossing of the aforesaid taxi driven by the accused, she was found to have suffered simple as also grievous injuries on her person. It is urged that as per the statement on oath by PWs 2, 3 and 7, the vehicle was being driven at a high speed. According to him, the divergence in the testimony of PWs, referred to above is of minor nature and has not rightly been appreciated by the trial Court. 6. Shri R K. Bawa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand adopted the reasoning given by the trial Court and submitted that when two versions emerge from the prosecution evidence, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted by this Court too. So by applying this principle the prosecution miserably failed to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. 7. The prosecution case is that Smt. Putli alongwith the injured Kumari Lily were crossing the road and the later was bit by the vehicle which was being driven rashly and negligently endangering hurt to the human being. Now scanning the testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, PW 1 was at his tea stall and as per his admission in his cross-examination, be did not witness the manner in which the occurrence took place, PW 2 Smt. Putli as per her own admission, was on the one side of the road and her daughter was playing on the road. Further even according to her the bus intervened at the material time and she could not witness the genesis, origin or manner in which the occurrence took place. PW 3 Keshav Ram also does not depose about having witnessed the occurrence. Further even according to her the bus intervened at the material time and she could not witness the genesis, origin or manner in which the occurrence took place. PW 3 Keshav Ram also does not depose about having witnessed the occurrence. His statement is that be reached at the spot after Smt. Putli, the mother of the injured bad reached there. PW 5 Prem Chand does not favour the prosecution and as such he has been declared to be hostile. His statement is only to the effect that vehicle was being driven at a high speed by the accused and PW 7 also is of no help to the prosecution in detailing the genesis, origin, or manner in which the accident took place Believing for the sake of argument that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed by the accused and he applied brakes to the vehicle for saving the girl, obviously, there should have been skid marks on or near by the spot But this fact is not witnessed by the site plan (Ex. PW 9/B) prepared at the earliest immediately after the report was lodged. Requirements of sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code which the prosecution are required to prove are that, (1) that the accused should be proved to be driver of the vehicle on a public way, (2) that at the material time, he was driving it rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to other person and thirdly, that it caused hurt to the other person consequent to such driving and further in order to prove the offence to be within the ambit of section 338, the prosecution is required to show that such hurt was grievous one. 8. The discussions made above shows that prosecution has not been able to prove, firstly that the vehicle was being driven at high speed and secondly that the injuries were the result of the impact i. e. the girl having been hit by the said vehicle. Even according to PW 6 Dr. Sudha Prakash, the possibility of Kumari Lily having sustained injuries referred to in Ex. PW 6/C by fall, cannot be ruled out. Even according to PW 6 Dr. Sudha Prakash, the possibility of Kumari Lily having sustained injuries referred to in Ex. PW 6/C by fall, cannot be ruled out. Thus on seeing the vehicle coming towards her, Kumari Lily might have run towards the other end of the road to save herself and in that process she might have fallen on the road and just sustained injuries. This possibility—too in view of the statement of the witnesses cannot be ruled out Thus applying the principle that when two versions emerge from the prosecution evidence the one which is favourable to the accused should be adopted and its benefit should be given to the accused, the approach of the learned Judge in appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the instant case, cannot be said to be wooden, imaginary or artificial one. Rather it is based on sound appreciation of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 9. In view of the above, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned judgment. As such the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.