JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 17.12.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Case No.99-II-2005, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent (for short ‘accused’) for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.1.2005 the complainant was taking his Tempo from Hamirpur to Hoshiarpur in order to bring vegetables there from and at around 10.45 a.m when he reached the place near Satsang Bhawan accused came from Nadaun side on a scooter which was occupied by Suresh Kumar as pillion rider. The accused was driving the offending vehicle in an excessive speed and struck the same against the tempo from wrong side which complainant had stopped on the side of the road on seeing the offending vehicle. An information about the accident was entered in the daily diary vide Rapat No.9 at Police Station Nadaun and on this ASI Vijay Kumar the Investigating Officer of the case along with other Police personnel reached the spot and recorded statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. On the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Nadaun against the accused. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and after completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. Notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He chose to lead evidence in defence as DW-1. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned vice counsel appearing for the respondent has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The genesis of the prosecution case as comprised in the F.I.R stood concerted to be proved by the prosecution by its leading into the witness box 9 witnesses. The complainant stepped into the witness box as PW-1. He in his deposition comprised in his examination in chief has ascribed negligence to the accused respondent in the latter’s driving his scooter at an excessive speed sequelling its colliding with the Tempo driven by him. Furthermore, he has in his deposition made communications therein of the accused respondent driving his scooter on the inappropriate side of the road. The significant fact which stands deposed in his cross-examination starkly in contradiction to his previous statement recorded in writing is of his disclosing therein of his on sighting the scooter driven by the accused his stopping his vehicle on the side of the road yet given the rash and negligent manner of driving of the scooter by the accused sequelling the vehicle driven by the latter to collide with the Tempo driven by him. The effect of the aforesaid contradictions qua the facet aforesaid comprised in his deposition existing in his cross-examination vis-a-vis his previous statement recorded in writing is of PW-1 not rendering a truthful version qua the genesis of the occurrence rather his making a proactive concert to improve besides embellish upon the version qua the incident previously recorded in the F.I.R comprised in Ext.PW-7/B. Concomitantly also hence his testimony qua the occurrence stands belied wherein he has ascribed to the accused negligence in his driving his scooter. 10. Be that as it may, the Investigating Officer was enjoined to hold a fair and impartisan investigation qua the offence committed by the respondent yet palpably as apparent from depictions in photographs P-1 to P-3 besides as displayed by his acquiescing in his cross-examination to the apposite suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel of the road at the relevant site of occurrence being both steep besides also a curve existing thereon when hence contradicts the site plan qua the occurrence prepared by him, site plan whereof stands comprised in Ext.PW-9/A contrarily garners an inference of the Investigating Officer not holding an impartisan investigation qua the offence allegedly committed by the accused respondent rather his holding a partisan investigation whereupon no truth is imputable. A concocted site plan qua the occurrence prepared by the Investigating Officer appears to have been drawn by him to hence falsely implicate the accused. 11. Even otherwise, the best evidence qua the occurrence stood constituted in the testimony of PW-4 an eye witness to it also a pillion rider along with the accused respondent in the offending vehicle driven by the accused at the apposite time. However, he has not supported the version qua the occurrence as deposed by PW-1. Consequently, with his not lending support to the prosecution version qua the occurrence as deposed by PW-1 also when the testimony of PW-1 qua the occurrence for the reasons aforestated is not unfolding the truth qua it rather his rendering an embellished version qua the occurrence, as a corollary with the eye witness to the occurrence also not lending succor to the genesis of the prosecution case rattles the edifice of the prosecution case. Before proceeding to dispel the vigour of the prosecution case on the anvil of an eye witness to the occurrence not lending support to it, the factum of PW-4 being a pillion rider on the offending scooter hence his holding leanings towards accused respondent whereupon his testimony may be construable to be an interested testimony rendering it to be discardable yet for holding a view of his testimony being hence overlookable by this Court it was enjoined upon the APP concerned to on his holding him to cross-examination on his standing declared hostile make apposite elicitations from him qua his testimony dis-imputing credence to the genesis of the prosecution case holding no vigour his being an interested besides a biased witness. Though the aforesaid endeavour stood concerted by the APP yet it was concerted in a most desultory fashion comprised in the APP concerned merely putting a solitary suggestion to him of his not holding any collusion with the accused/respondent suggestions whereof elicited an answer in the negative from PW-4. However, no further endeavour stood concerted by the APP concerned for belying his testimony wherein he has dis-imputed negligence to the accused respondent rather has made communications therein qua arrival of a cow at the relevant site of occurrence compelling the accused for obviating his vehicle colliding with a cow to swerve it towards the side of the road occupied by the Tempo. Now the effect of the aforesaid unenthusiastic concert made by the APP concerned to belittle the creditworthiness of PW-4 when construed in conjunction with the factum of PW-1 embellishing while deposing in Court his previously recorded version qua the occurrence also hence his rendering his testimony to be at variance viz-a-viz his previous statement recorded in writing wherein he has not made a disclosure of his stopping his vehicle on the side of the road on sighting the offending vehicle whereupon a taint of untruthfulness ingrains his testimony, is of the driver of the Tempo rather omitting to stop his vehicle despite sighting the offending vehicle coming from the opposite side whose driver for obviating its colliding with a cow which abruptly arrived thereat swerved it from its chosen path rather his taking to ply it onwards, plying whereof by him in case had been not endeavoured by him would have obviated the road mishap. Consequently, it appears that there may have been some negligence on the part of the Tempo driver inasmuch as his not adhering to the standards of due care and caution even when the accused respondent may have swerved his vehicle from its chosen path for obviating its colliding with a cow which abruptly arrived thereat. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart there from the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 13. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.