JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant revision petition stands directed against the concurrently recorded findings of conviction and consequent sentence imposed upon the accused/convict/revisionist by both the Courts below. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Lal Dass lodged statement with the Investigating Officer on 31.3.2007 that on that date he and Sanjay Kumar were sitting on a stone at Jugnu Mor Brow then a truck No. HR-37-A-6567 came from Brow side proceeding towards Bazir Bawri being driven in a fast speed by the driver who could not control such truck and drove it on them. It was alleged that due to his rash and negligent driving they sustained injuries on their person. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation by preparing site plan and also seized documents of the vehicle. On completion of investigation into the offences allegedly committed by the accused a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stood prepared and filed in the competent Court. 3. Notice of accusation stood put to the accused/revisionist 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 7 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood recorded wherein he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. In defence he did not chose to lead evidence. 5. The accused stands aggrieved by the concurrently recorded judgments of conviction and sentence recorded by both the Courts below. Ms. Rita Goswami, learned counsel for the revisionist has concerted to vigorously contend before this Court qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not anvilled on a proper appreciation by it of evidence on record, rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, she contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the both the Courts below being based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any interference rather meriting vindication. 7. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the both the Courts below being based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any interference rather meriting vindication. 7. 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. 8. The accused/convict while at the relevant site of occurrence driving his vehicle bearing No. HR-37-A-6567, his purported negligent manner of driving it sequelled its striking besides plying upon the legs of the victims. PW-4, who held the medical examination of the victims Sanjay Kumar and Lal Dass, prepared qua them MLCs, which respectively stand borne on Ext.PW-4/A and Ext.PW-4/B. He voices therein of the injuries depicted therein standing begotten on the relevant portions of the bodies of the victims/injured within less than six hours elapsing since his holding their medical examination. Consequently, the injuries manifested in the aforesaid MLCs stand connected with the timings of the relevant enunciations occurring in F.I.R Ext.7/C besides with MLCs aforesaid holding congruity vis-à-vis unfoldments occurring in Ext.PW-7/C hence with omnibus concurrence therein erupting qua the facets aforesaid beget an inference of the manifestations in Ext.PW-7/C holding tenacity qua the ascription therein of an incriminatory role to the accused. 9. Be that as it may, with Ext.PW-4/A and Ext.PW-4/B holding congruity with the manifestations occurring in the apposite F.I.R. lodged qua the occurrence also with the eye witnesses thereto unequivocally testifying qua the vehicle driven by the accused/convict standing negligently driven by him negligence whereof stands imputed by them to the accused given his driving the apposite vehicle at a brazen pace, may hence constrain this Court to sustain the concurrently recorded findings of conviction against the accused/convict by both the Courts below. However, for the depositions of the eye witnesses to the occurrence being construable to be creditworthy they stand enjoined to be read in a wholesome manner rather than in a piecemeal besides fragmentary manner. However, for the depositions of the eye witnesses to the occurrence being construable to be creditworthy they stand enjoined to be read in a wholesome manner rather than in a piecemeal besides fragmentary manner. Only on the testimonies of the respective eye witnesses to the occurrences embodied both in their respective examinations in chief and in their cross-examinations standing piercingly read would constitute their reading besides their appraisal being done in the apt wholesome manner whereupon hence the truth qua the occurrence would stand unraveled. Contrarily any piecemeal reading of their depositions would not unfold the truth qua the occurrence. Even though each of the eye witnesses to the occurrence in their respective depositions embodied in their respective examinations in chief besides in their cross-examinations attribute negligence to the accused/convict sprouting from his driving his vehicle at the relevant site of occurrence at a brazen pace yet the pronouncement made respectively by them in their respective testifications of theirs occupying a stone located on the side of the road pronouncement whereof by them stands succored by photographs Ext.P-2 and Ext. P-3 also with PW-1 in his cross-examination unveiling therein of on either side of the road there existing a drain in vicinity of the Kacha Gola at the relevant site does sustain the defence of the accused of the victims falling thereinto whereupon injuries stood entailed upon their respective persons also with PW-4 in his cross-examination acquiescing to the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel of the victims falling thereinto whereafter theirs standing struck with the vehicle driven by the accused/convict moreso, when PW-4 in his cross-examination acquiesces to the suggestion in tandem therewith put to him by the learned defence counsel besides with PW-5 in his cross-examination conceding to the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel qua the stone whereon they stood perched holding facilitation to them to sight the vehicle driven by the accused/convict, all are material pieces of evidence warranting their probative value standing neither undermined nor standing discounted by this Court. Given the aforesaid acquiesces made in the testifications of the aforesaid eye witnesses to the ill-fated occurrence renders the trite attribution by each of negligence to the accused comprised in his driving his vehicle at the relevant time of occurrence at a brazen pace, negligent manner of driving whereof led its standing navigated thereat besides its standing maneuvered to the relevant site of occurrence, to be legally insufficient, to, constrain any inference of his thereupon abandoning adherence to the standards of due care and caution. Only on evident evidence in display of his abandoning adherence to the tenets of due care and caution while plying his vehicle at the relevant time would penal culpable negligence stand fastened qua him. Consequently, even if assumingly this Court holds of a accused/convict taking to drive his vehicle at the relevant site of occurrence at an excessive pace yet the aforesaid conclusion would not lead to a concomitant deduction of his driving it rashly and negligently. For determining whether the accused/convict drove his vehicle at the relevant site of occurrence in negation of the enjoined obligation upon him to drive it thereat in compliance with the standards of due care and caution, the vivid pronouncement occurring in the cross-examination of PW-1 of a drain existing in vicinity to the Kacha Gola located at the relevant site of occurrence, also the admission in the cross-examination of PW-5 wherein he acquiesces qua the visibility of the vehicle driven by the accused/convict from the stone whereon they stood perched cannot be undermined. With the injured/victims uncontrovertedly being perched on a stone also with the factum of its existence within the expanse of the road as stands depicted by photographs Ext.P-2 and P-3 also with a drain existing in vicinity to the relevant site of occurrence, read in coalescence with the pronouncements made by PW-5 in his cross-examination, of, the victims despite standing perched on the stone existing within the expanse of the road whereupon they held the capacity to sight the vehicle driven by the accused stems a deduction of theirs standing warranted, for, obviating the vehicle driven by the accused striking them especially when the stone whereon they stood perched stood located within the expanse of the road whereat alone vehicles were enjoined to ply, to alight therefrom on theirs sighting the vehicle driven by the accused. Apparently, it appears of the victims despite sighting the vehicle driven by the accused/convict theirs continuing to occupy the stone rather than alighting therefrom, though for obviating the truck driven by the accused colliding with their persons they were enjoined to alight therefrom. Consequently theirs misfeasance fosters an inference from this Court of theirs not adhering to the standards of due care and caution. Moreover when given theirs not alighting therefrom despite sighting the vehicle driven by the accused/convict they appear to palpably from their overt misfeasance suo moto rendered themselves susceptible to theirs standing struck by the vehicle driven by the convict, whereas in the event of theirs not committing any palpable misfeasance, would have preempted the relevant vehicle striking their persons. Contrarily negligence as stands ascribed by the eye witness to the accused/convict qua the ill fated occurrence stands mis-imputed to him. Prominently also with the acquiescence of PW-1 in his cross-examination of a drain occurring in close vicinity to relevant site of occurrence whereon the defence espouses of theirs falling thereinto whereafter their person stood accidently struck by the truck driven by the accused/convict whereupon they sustained injuries also attains succor from the deposition of the Medical Officer who deposed as PW-4. As a corollary, imminently when convincing evidence stands not adduced by the prosecution of the convict/accused while navigating his vehicle at the relevant site of occurrence his sighting the victims to fall into the drain fosters an inference of the accused accidently striking the victims/injured at the drain whereinto they accidently slipped into. In aftermath, the convict/accused cannot be construed to willfully depart from adhereing to the standards of due care and caution in his accidently striking the apposite vehicle with the person of the victims/injured. 10. Accentuated vigour to the aforesaid inference stands mobilized by the factum of the site plan comprised in Ext.PW-7/A not depicting therein the existence of a stone within the expanse of the road whereas photographs comprised in Ext.P-2 & Ext.P-3 connote its existence thereon. Non depiction by the Investigating Officer in site plan Ext.PW-7/A of existence of a stone within the expanse of the road appears to stand germinated by his holding a slanted besides a partisan investigation qua the offences constituted in F.I.R. Ext.PW-7/C also it palpably stands sprouted by his concerting to blunt the truth qua the cause of sustaining of injuries by the victims/injured. The concurrently recorded findings of conviction and sentence against the accused by both the Courts below stand founded upon theirs committing a gross illegality besides impropriety arising from theirs mis-appreciating the relevant evidence also on theirs omitting to appreciate the relevant and germane material. 11. The summum bonum of the above discussion is that the prosecution has not been able to adduce cogent and emphatic evidence in proving the guilt of the accused. The appreciation of the evidence as done by the learned Courts below suffers from an infirmity as well as perversity. Consequently, reinforcingly, it can be formidably concluded, that, the findings of the learned trial Court merit interference. 12. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence rendered by both the Courts below are set aside. The revisionist/accused is acquitted of the offences charged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records be sent forthwith.