JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 14.9.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. II, Hamirpur, H.P in police Challan No. 47-II-2005, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent (for short ‘accused’) for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.7.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. at place Badhar accused was found to be driving a bus bearing registration No. HP-22-4834 in rash and negligent manner on a public road so as to endanger human life and personal safety of the others. Due to his rash and negligent driving he lost control over the vehicle and bus turned turtle due to which Duni Chand, Hukam Chand and Harnam Singh received simple inquires on their person. It has been alleged that the matter was reported to the police vide Rapat Ex.P-4. Statement of the complainant Ex. Ex.PW-1/A was recorded. On the basis of which FIR Ex. PW-7/A was registered. Rukka Ex.PW-6/B was prepared. Injured were medically examined on an application Ex.PW-9/A. Spot map Ex. PW-10/B was prepared. RC and insurance of the bus was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex,.PW-4/B. Bus was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-5/A. DL of the accused was also taken into possession. Bus was got mechanically examined and its mechanical report is comprised in Ex.PW-6/A. Photographs Ex. PW-8/A to PW8/C were clicked. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. 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 and 337 of I.P.C, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 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. However, he did not choose to lead evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. 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. However, he did not choose to lead evidence in defence. 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. 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/accused has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court 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 accused while driving the bus aforesaid in a rash and negligent manner sequelled its turning turtle whereupon injuries stood entailed on the persons of Duni Chand, Hukam Chand and Harnam Singh. The rash and negligent manner of the driving of the vehicle aforesaid by the accused stands espoused by the prosecution to spur from the factum of his being inebriated at the relevant time besides his conversing on his mobile phone. The aforesaid factum also stands deposed by the eye witnesses to the occurrence who stepped into the witness box as PWs 2 and 3. However the aforesaid factum as stands ascribed by the prosecution to the accused, factum whereof is personificatory of his negligently swerving his vehicle to that portion of the road whereat it turned turtle, stands not proclaimed by the complainant in the apposite FIR lodged by him qua the occurrence also the eye witnesses aforesaid did not disclose the aforesaid factum in their respective previous statements recorded in writing by the Investigating Officer. Consequently, the omission on the part of the complainant to disclose the aforesaid factum in the FIR lodged by him qua the occurrence renders his testification in Court qua the factum of the driver being negligent in driving his vehicle, negligence whereof arose on his being inebriated at the relevant time besides from his conversing over his mobile also hence testifications in Court by the eye witnesses qua the factum aforesaid when starkly contradicting their respective previous statements recorded in writing are all rendered discardable theirs standing tainted with an obvious vice of embellishments besides improvements vis-à-vis their previous statements recorded in writing also the factum aforesaid acquires a similar taint awakened by the factum of theirs not in their respective previous statements recorded in writing making any communications in tandem there with. Consequently, when their depositions are ridden with a vice of embellishments or improvements no reliance thereupon can stand imputed by this Court as tenably done by the learned trial Court. 10. Apparently the vehicle driven by the accused had swerved to the kucha portion of the road, portion where of stands suddenly collapsed sequelling the bus driven by the accused to turn turtle. Since the swerving of the vehicle driven by the accused stands concluded to stand not begotten by the accused negligently and rashly driving the bus aforesaid also when depictions in the spot map comprised in Ex.PW-10/B also reflections in the photographs qua the relevant spot are not communicatory of given the expanse of the width of the road, the vehicle driven by the accused at the relevant time would not moving thereto unless its being negligently driven by the accused, whereupon hence an inference of negligence may stand marshaled against the accused. However, absence of the aforesaid apposite portrayals in the site plan besides in the photographs, sequels an ensuing conclusion of the width of the road at the relevant site of occurrence being narrow also its being constricted in its expanse permitting the plying thereon of only a single vehicle necessarily when hence the kutcha portion of the road was close to the tarred portion thereof, the sudden collapsing of the kutcha portion is to be construed to be the cause for the vehicle driven by the accused turning turtle. 11. 11. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court merit any interference. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.