JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rajgarh District Sirmour HP in criminal case No. 32/2 of 2005 title State of HP Vs. Kamal Kumar. Brief facts of prosecution case: 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 3.4.2005 at about 7.45 AM at place Jhalti curve on Nauradhar Rajgarh accused was driving truck No. HP-64-4045 in rash and negligent manner. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused could not control the speed of vehicle and truck No. HP-64-4045 went off the road and fell down below road. It is further alleged by prosecution that in accident occupant Ranbir Singh received simple injury and accused also received simple and grievous injuries and Ram Rattan occupant of truck also received grievous injuries who died due to injuries. It is further alleged by prosecution that Hitender also received injuries. It is further alleged by prosecution that matter was reported in police station vide rapat Ext PW8/A and statement under section 154 Cr.PC recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext PW8/A was registered. It is further alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext PW15/A was prepared at spot and truck No. HP-64-4045 along with documents took into possession. It is further alleged by prosecution that injured Ranbir Singh was also medically examined and MLC Ext PW9/A was obtained. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused was medically examined and MLC Ext PW9/B was also obtained. It is further alleged by prosecution that MLC of Hitender Kumar was also obtained. It is further alleged by prosecution that truck No. HP-64-4045 was mechanically examined and mechanical report Ext PW13/A was obtained. 3. Notice of accusation was given to accused under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajgarh District Sirmour HP on dated 3.11.2005. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined fifteen oral witnesses and tendered documentaries evidence. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused has stated that accident occurred due to failure of brake of vehicle. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Learned Trial Court acquitted accused. 5. Feeling aggrieved against judgment passed by learned Trial Court State of HP filed present appeal. 6. Prosecution examined fifteen oral witnesses and tendered documentaries evidence. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused has stated that accident occurred due to failure of brake of vehicle. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Learned Trial Court acquitted accused. 5. Feeling aggrieved against judgment passed by learned Trial Court State of HP filed present appeal. 6. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent and also gone through entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal: 1. Whether appeal filed by State of HP against judgment of acquittal is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. 8. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8.1 PW1 Prem Dutt has stated that deceased Ram Rattan was his younger brother and deceased was traveling in truck at the time of accident. He has stated that truck rolled down from road and he visited the spot after occurrence of accident. He has stated that Ram Rattan died in accident. He has stated that police officials visited the spot and truck No. HP-64-4045 took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/A. He has stated that after conducting post mortem of deceased body of deceased was handed over to him. He has stated that he has signed document Ext PW1/A as marginal witness. He has stated that he was informed by people that truck was rolled down from road when driver of truck had given pass to van. He has stated that he does not know that steering of vehicle was locked at the curve of road. 8.2 PW2 Asha Parkash has stated that accident took place on 3.4.2005. He has stated that he visited the spot after occurrence of accident. He has stated that truck involved in accident took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/A and he signed documents as marginal witness. He has stated that documents of truck were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW2/A and he signed documents as marginal witness. He has stated that he heard from people that accident took place when driver of truck had given pass to van. He has stated that steering of truck was locked. He has stated that truck was moving in a normal speed. He has stated that he heard from people that accident took place when driver of truck had given pass to van. He has stated that steering of truck was locked. He has stated that truck was moving in a normal speed. He has stated that van was driven in a very fast speed. He has stated that accident took place when pass was given to van and when steering of the truck was locked. 8.3 PW3 Smt. Priksha Chauan has stated that on dated 21.4.2005 Asha Parkash handed over documents of truck to investigating agency and same were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW8/A and she signed documents as marginal witness. She has stated that she was informed by people that accident took place when driver of truck had given pass to van and when steering of truck was locked. She has stated that truck was driven in normal speed by accused. 8.4 PW4 Ranbir Singh has stated that he was travelling in truck No. HP-64-4045 at the time of accident. He has stated that truck was driven by accused. He has stated that van came from opposite side in a very fast speed. He has stated that in order to give pass to van truck rolled down from road. He has stated that accused was driving truck in a slow speed. He has stated that accident did not take place due to negligence of accused. He has admitted that Ram Rattan died in accident. He has stated that Ram Rattan was brought to civil hospital and his statement Ext PW4/A was recorded. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. He has stated that he has not given statement of portion ‘A to A’ and ‘B to B’ of Ext PW4/A to investigating agency. He has denied suggestion that he has resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused. He has denied suggestion that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by truck driver. In cross examination he has admitted that truck was driven by accused in slow speed. He has stated that truck driver had given pass just to save the van which was coming in very fast speed. He has stated that accident took place due to fault in steering of truck. He has stated that he was travelling in truck at the time of accident. He has stated that truck driver had given pass just to save the van which was coming in very fast speed. He has stated that accident took place due to fault in steering of truck. He has stated that he was travelling in truck at the time of accident. He has stated that accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver. 8.5 PW5 Hitender Singh has stated that he was travelling in vehicle No. HP-64-4045 at the time of accident. He has stated that van came in very fast speed and in order to give pass to van truck rolled down from road. He has stated that truck rolled down from road due to lock of steering. He has stated that accused was driving truck in proper manner. He has stated that accused was not driving truck in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. He has stated that he did not give statement portion ‘A to A and ‘B to B’ of mark ‘B’ to investigating agency. He has stated that he also sustained injury in accident. He has stated that he was medically examined in civil hospital Rajgarh. He has denied suggestion that he has resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused. He has denied suggestion that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck. He has admitted in cross-examination that accused was driving truck in slow speed. He has admitted in cross-examination that in order to save van which came in fast speed the truck was rolled down from road due to fault in steering. 8.6 PW6 Bhagat Ram has stated that on dated 3.4.2004 he visited at the place of accident. He has stated that injured persons were brought to civil hospital Rajgarh. He has admitted in cross-examination that road is in higher level in slope at the place of accident. 8.7 PW7 Dr. D.D. Sharma has stated that he is posted as Radiologist in Regional Hospital Nahan since April 2001. He has stated that on dated 1.7.2005 he examined xray film of injured Hitender Singh son of Daya Ram referred to him. He has stated that he submitted report Ext PW7/A which bears his signature. 8.7 PW7 Dr. D.D. Sharma has stated that he is posted as Radiologist in Regional Hospital Nahan since April 2001. He has stated that on dated 1.7.2005 he examined xray film of injured Hitender Singh son of Daya Ram referred to him. He has stated that he submitted report Ext PW7/A which bears his signature. He has stated that on the same day he examined x-ray film No. 28 pertaining to Kamal Kumar accused and he submitted report Ext PW7/B. 8.8 PW8 HC Kuldip Kumar has stated that he was posted as investigating officer police station Rajgarh since March 2004. He has stated that FIR Ext PW8/A was registered which is written and signed by him. He has stated that endorsement Ext PW8/B is also signed by him. 8.9 PW9 Madan Dutt has stated that he was posted as constable police station Rajgarh since 2001. He has stated that on dated 3.4.2005 at about 8.30 morning Asha Parkash pradhan of gram panchayat has given information by way of telephone about accident. He has stated that police officials namely ASI Chaman Lal, Ram Kumar and Sunil Kumar visited the spot and rapat No. 4 Ext PW8/A was recorded. He has denied suggestion that rapat Ext PW8/A is not written and signed by him. 8.10 PW10 Dr.Y.P.Sharma has stated that he was posted as medical officer in civil hospital Rajgarh since June 2002. He has stated that on dated 3.4.2005 he examined Ranbir Singh, Kamal Kumar accused and Hitender Kumar who were brought to him by police officials relating to alleged history of road accident. He has stated that after examination of injured persons he issued MLC Ext PW9/A, Ext PW9/B and Ext PW9/C which bears his signatures. He has stated that injuries shown in MLC relating to injured persons are possible in road side accident. He has stated that he also given opinion on the back side of MLC after perusal of x-ray report. 8.11 PW11 Dr. Vikas Fotedar has stated that he was posted as medical officer in civil hospital Rajgarh since January 2005. He has stated that he conducted post mortem of deceased Ram Rattan and issued post mortem report Ext PW11/A which bears his signature. He has stated that deceased died due to head injuries leading to brain damage and death. 8.12. PW12 Chain Ram has stated that he was posted as SHO police station Rajgarh since 2004. He has stated that he conducted post mortem of deceased Ram Rattan and issued post mortem report Ext PW11/A which bears his signature. He has stated that deceased died due to head injuries leading to brain damage and death. 8.12. PW12 Chain Ram has stated that he was posted as SHO police station Rajgarh since 2004. He has stated that on dated 7.7.2005 investigation report was handed over to him by ASI Chaman Lal and he prepared challan. He has stated that challan was signed by him. 8.13. PW13 Jagpal Singh has stated that in the year 1991 he obtained motor mechanic diploma from ITI Nahan and remained posted as motor mechanic in police line Nahan since 1998 to 2005. He has stated that he mechanically examined many vehicles. He has stated that he mechanically examined vehicle involved in accident and submitted his report Ext PW13/A. He has stated that tie rod of steering system of vehicle was pulled out. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that steering system of vehicle would not operate if tie rod would pull out. He has denied suggestion that accident took place due to pulling out of tie rod from steering system of vehicle. He has admitted that there was curve at the place of accident. 8.14 PW14 Chain Ram SHO has stated that he was posted as SHO in police station Rajgarh since 2004. He has stated that on dated 3.4.2005 at 8.30 AM Asha Parkash pradhan gram panchayat has given information about accident and thereafter rapat Ext PW8/A was recorded. He has stated that information was also given to District Magistrate. He has stated that thereafter police officials visited the spot and investigation was conducted. He has stated that after preparation of challan same was presented in Court. In cross-examination he has admitted that information was received through telephone. He has denied suggestion that no information was received by way of telephone. 8.15 PW15 ASI Chaman Lal has stated that he was posted as ASI in police station Rajgarh w.e.f. 28.8.2004 to 14.7.2005. He has stated that on dated 3.4.2005 Asha Parkash pradhan gram panchayat has given information in police station that truck No. HP-64-4045 rolled down from road and one person died at the spot. He has stated that injured persons were brought to hospital. He has stated that rapat No. 4 Ext PW8/A was registered in police station Rajgarh. He has stated that on dated 3.4.2005 Asha Parkash pradhan gram panchayat has given information in police station that truck No. HP-64-4045 rolled down from road and one person died at the spot. He has stated that injured persons were brought to hospital. He has stated that rapat No. 4 Ext PW8/A was registered in police station Rajgarh. He has stated that thereafter police officials visited the spot. He has stated that statement of Ranbir Singh Ext PW4/A was recorded under section 154 Cr.PC. He has stated that FIR Ext PW8/A was registered and site plan Ext PW 15/A was prepared as per factual location of site. He has stated that vehicle involved in accident took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/A. He has stated that medical examination of Ranbir Singh, Kamal Kumar accused and Hitender Kumar was conducted and MLC Ext PW9/A to Ext PW9/C were obtained. He has stated that statements of witnesses recorded as per their versions. He has stated that photographs Ext P1 to Ext P9 also obtained. He has stated that mechanical examination of vehicle was conducted and mechanical report Ext PW13/A was obtained. He has stated that post mortem report Ext PW11/A was obtained. He has stated that statements of witnesses recorded as per their versions. He has stated that after completion of investigation case file was handed over to SHO. In cross examination he has stated that information about accident was received at 8.30 AM and immediately police officials visited the spot in government vehicle. He has stated that thereafter he visited hospital because injured persons were brought to hospital. He has stated that statement of Ranbir Singh was recorded. He has admitted that tie rod of the steering of vehicle was pulled out. He has denied suggestion that accused was driving vehicle in normal speed. He has denied suggestion that he conducted all investigation proceedings in police station. He has denied suggestion that he did not prepare site plan as per factual situation. He has denied suggestion that he has filed false case against accused in collusion with witnesses. 9. Statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. Accused has stated that accident took place due to pull out of tie rod from steering of vehicle. He has stated that he is innocent and false case registered against him. Accused did not lead defence evidence. 10. 9. Statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. Accused has stated that accident took place due to pull out of tie rod from steering of vehicle. He has stated that he is innocent and false case registered against him. Accused did not lead defence evidence. 10. Following documentaries evidence adducted by prosecution. (1) Ext PW1/A is the seizure memo of truck having registration No. HP-64-4045. (2) Ext PW4/A is the statement of Ranbir Singh recorded under section 154 Cr.PC (3) Ext PW7/A is x-ray film of injured Hitender Singh. (4) Ext PW8/A is FIR No. 31 dated 3.4.2005 registered under sections 279,337 and 304A IPC. (5) Ext PW 8/A is rapat No. 4 dated 3.4.2005. (6) Ext PW2/A is seizure memo of documents of vehicle No. HP-64-4045. (7) Ext PW9/A is MLC of Ranbir Singh. (8) Ext PW9/B is MLC of Kamal Kumar accused. (9) Ext PW9/C is MLC of Hitender Singh. (10) Ext PW11/A is post mortem report of Ram Rattan (11) Ext PW13/A is mechanical examination report of truck No. HP- 64-4045. (12) Ext PW15/A is site plan. (13) Ext PW15/B is inquest report dated 3.4.2005. (14) Ext P1 to Ext P9 are photographs and Ext P10 to Ext P16 are negatives of photographs. 11. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that as per testimony of PW13 Jagpal Singh mechanical expert steering system of vehicle would not stop operating after pulling out of tie rod of steering system and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW13 Jagpal Singh is not eye witness of accident. PW13 Jagpal Singh was not present at spot at the time of accident. PW13 Jagpal Singh visited the spot after occurrence of accident. Eye witness namely PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh have specifically stated when they appeared in witness box that accident did not take place due to negligence of accused. PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh eye witnesses of the accident have specifically stated in positive manner that accused was driving truck in slow speed at the time of accident. Testimonies of PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. It is well settled law that when there are conflicts between ocular evidence and expert evidence then ocular direct eye evidence should be prevailed. See. Testimonies of PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. It is well settled law that when there are conflicts between ocular evidence and expert evidence then ocular direct eye evidence should be prevailed. See. JT 2015 (7) SCC 192 title Parhlad and another Vs. State of Haryana. It is well settled law that purpose of expert opinion is primarily to assist the Court for arriving at final conclusion. It is well settled law that expert report is not binding upon Court. It is well settled law that if testimony of eye witness is trustworthy then Court would be within its jurisdiction to discard expert evidence. See AIR 2012 SC 3046 title Dayal Singh Vs. Uttranchal. 12. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of official witnesses without any reasonable cause and on this ground appeal filed by State be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Official witnesses are not eye witnesses of the accident. Official witnesses visited the spot after occurrence of accident. Testimonies of eye witnesses namely PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court because they are eye witness of accident and they were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident. 13. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that judgment passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law and contrary to facts and learned Trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused testimony of prosecution witnesses. PW1 Prem Dutt is not eye witness of the accident and he was not present at the spot when accident took place. PW1 Prem Dutt visited the spot at later stage. Hence testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to convict accused. PW2 Asha Parkash is not eye witness of accident. PW2 Asha Parkash visited the spot after the occurrence of accident. Testimony of PW2 Asha Parkash is not sufficient to convict accused in present case. PW3 Smt. Pratiksha Chauhan is also not eye witness of the accident and she visited the spot after occurrence of accident and her testimony is not sufficient to convict accused. PW2 Asha Parkash visited the spot after the occurrence of accident. Testimony of PW2 Asha Parkash is not sufficient to convict accused in present case. PW3 Smt. Pratiksha Chauhan is also not eye witness of the accident and she visited the spot after occurrence of accident and her testimony is not sufficient to convict accused. PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh eye witness of the accident did not support prosecution case as alleged by prosecution. PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh have specifically stated in positive manner that accused was driving vehicle in slow speed. PW4 and PW5 have specifically stated in positive manner that accident did not take place due to fault of accused. PW6 Bhagat Ram is not eye witness of the accident and he visited the spot after occurrence of accident. PW7 D.D.Sharma Radiologist is not eye witness of the accident and his testimony is only corroborative in nature. PW8 Kuldip Kumar is also not eye witness of accident and his testimony is corroborative in nature. PW9 Madan Dutt, PW10 Dr.Y.P. Sharma, PW11 Dr. Vikas Fotedar, PW12 Chain Ram, PW13 Jagpal Singh, PW14 Chain Ram and PW15 Chaman Lal are also not eye witnesses of the accident and their testimonies are merely corroborative in nature. 14. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh have been declared hostile in present case and their testimonies cannot be relied in any manner and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that evidence of hostile witness should not be totally discarded altogether but should be closely scrutinized. See 2016 (2) Him.L.R (SC) 1148 title Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi. See 2002 (7) SCC 543 title Balu Sonba Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra. See Koli Lakshmanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat 1999 (8) SCC 624 . See Prithi Vs. State of Haryana 2010 (8) SCC 536 . See Ram Krishna Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 (13) SCC 525 . See Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1991 SC 1853 . See Bhajju alias Karam Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (4) SCC 327 . See Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1976 SC 2002 . See Ravindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orrissa AIR 1979 SC 170 . See Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1991 SC 1853 . See Bhajju alias Karam Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (4) SCC 327 . See Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1976 SC 2002 . See Ravindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orrissa AIR 1979 SC 170 . See Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnatka AIR 1979 SC 1848 . 15. In the present case two views have emerged in prosecution story. PW13 Jagpal Singh mechanic has stated that steering system of vehicle would operate properly even after pull out of tie rod of steering system. On the contrary PW4 Ranbir Singh and PW5 Hitender Singh eye witnesses of the accident have specifically stated in positive manner that driver was driving vehicle in slow speed. It is well settled law that when two views have emerged in prosecution story then benefit of doubt should be given to accused. See 2006 (12) SCC 306 title Vikram Jit Vs. State of Punjab. See SLJ 1996 (2) 890 Apex Court title Mulak Raj Vs State of Haryana. See 2005 (5) JT 553 title State of UP Vs. Gambhir Singh and others. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 16. In view of findings upon point No.1 judgment of learned trial Court is affirmed by way of giving benefit of doubt to accused. Appeal filed by State of H.P. is dismissed. File of learned trial Court along with certified copy of judgment be sent back forthwith. Criminal appeal No. 72 of 2007 is disposed of. All pending application(s) if any also stands disposed of.