JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J. (Oral): Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.10.1993 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, whereby the accused-respondent (here-in- after referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of the acusations under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C., the State has preferred the present appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.1.1991 at about 8.30 PM the accused was driving Truck No. HPM-9062 on a public way at Sunpur in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Consequently, due to the rash speed the truck turned turtle as a consequence whereof PW-2 Ravinder Kumar sustained injuries and Vijay Kumar died of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The matter was reported to the police by Ravinder Kumar whereupon a F.I.R. came to be registered in police Station Baijnath and the matter was investigated into by the Police. After investigation a charge-sheet under Section 279,337 and 304-A I.P.C. was submitted against the accused who came to be tried by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, who acquitted the accused of the accusations. 3. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned counsel for the accused. 4. It may be pointed out at the very outset that it is not disputed that the accident occurred leading to sustaining of the injuries by PW-2 Ravinder Kumar and resulting in the death of Vijay Kumar. The only disputed question in the matter is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and/or negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused or it was a simple accident beyond the control of the accused. 5. A perusal of the evidence, as available on the record reveals that the accident is attributable not to the rash and/or negligent driving by the accused, but the other attending circumstances. PW-1 Ravinder Kumar, the information, has admitted in his cross examination that the accident occurred at a sharp turn where on the side of the road Bajri was lying. lt has also been suggested to this witness in the cross examination that the cause for accident was lying of the rohree/Bajri on one side of the road and giving way by the retaining wall on the other side. But this suggestion has been denied by this witness. lt has also been suggested to this witness in the cross examination that the cause for accident was lying of the rohree/Bajri on one side of the road and giving way by the retaining wall on the other side. But this suggestion has been denied by this witness. However, the denial of the suggested facts by this witness does not appear to be true, in view of the statements of PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar, PW-4 Amin Chand, PW-7 Rajinder Parshad and PW-10 Kuldip Singh. 6. PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar one of the occupant at the relevant time has stated that the truck did not fell due to the mistake of the driver. He has further stated that on one side of the road the Bajries were lying and the retaining wall was not in proper condition and it was due to the giving way by the retaining wall that the accident had occurred. He has further stated that the truck was being driven at a slow speed. 7. PW-4 Amin Chand, though not an eye-witness, had mechanically examined the vehicle in question and has stated that on the spot the road is Kacha and narrow and in case the Bajries are lying on one side of the road and the truck has to be brought from the side of the Dangga and the Dangga gave way the situation may lead to an accident Though part of the opinion in his statement cannot be relied upon but his admission that on the spot the road was kacha and narrow has to be taken into account. He has also admitted that on one side of the road Bajri were lying but no-doubt at the time when he visited the spot. But it is nobodys case that such Bajri were kept on the road after the accident. 8. PW-7 Rajinder Parshad has also clearly admitted that the Bajri were lying on the road and at the place of accident there is a sharp curve and the road is Kacha and the retaining wall had given way, and that the accident occurred due to the giving way by the dangga. 9. PW-10 Kuldip Singh is the person who took photographs after visiting the spot after the accident. 9. PW-10 Kuldip Singh is the person who took photographs after visiting the spot after the accident. He has also admitted in his cross examination that at the place of accident Bajri were stacked on one side of the road and the retaining wall on the spot had given way. 10. Thus, what clearly emerges from the admissions made by these witnesses is that at the place of occurrence Bajri were stacked on the road where the accident occurred and on the other side the retaining wali gave way whereby the truck fell down. Evidently, this is a case of pure and simple I accident and no rash or negligent act can be attributed to the accused in driving the truck in question. 11. In view of the above said discussion what can be said is that the learned trial Magistrate after appraisal of the evidence has arrived at the right conclusion that the defence version about the circumstances leading to the accident is established on record and that the accusations against the accused were not proved. The impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. As a result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed.