JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 1.5.2007 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No. 49-II/2003, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents (for short =accused') for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2002 at around 10.50 a.m. on the public highway at Kiryada Chowk, the accused Ashwani Kumar was driving bus No. HP-36-0398 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of Ms. Pooja due to his negligent driving. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant Hardayal Singh vide his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PA, in which it was mentioned by him that on 30.12.2002 he had gone to the house of his sister Babita Devi at Muhal and on 31.12.2002 at about 10.30 a.m. he alongwith his sister Pooja boarded the bus and at around 10.50 at Kiryada Chowk the bus was stopped and he came out from the bus and his sister Pooja tried to came out from the bus from front window and bus driver all of a sudden started the bus, as a result of which Pooja fell on the road and received multiple injuries. The bus driver did not stop the bus and he accordingly arranged van and took Pooja to hospital at Sub Divisional Hospital, Dehra but Pooja succumbed to her injuries at around 11.30 a.m. It was also stated by the complainant in his statement that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. On the statement of complainant, FIR Ex. PW-1/B was registered and investigation conducted by SI/SHO Daulat Ram. The photographs of deceased Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-6 alongwith negatives Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-12 were obtained and postmortem of deceased Pooja was conducted at Sub Divisional Hospital, Dehra and report of concerned Doctor Ex. PD was obtained. The investigating officer during the course of investigation, prepared site plan of spot of occurrence Ex. PW-7/A and also took into possession bus involved in the accident alongwith its documents vide memo Ex. PA in presence of witnesses Baldev Raj and Chandel Singh. Inquest report of Ms. Pooja was prepared. The mechanical examination of the bus was conducted and report of mechanic Ex. PE was produced. PW-7/A and also took into possession bus involved in the accident alongwith its documents vide memo Ex. PA in presence of witnesses Baldev Raj and Chandel Singh. Inquest report of Ms. Pooja was prepared. The mechanical examination of the bus was conducted and report of mechanic Ex. PE was produced. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the investigating officer. After completion of investigation, the police found prima facie case against the accused for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. and Sections 184 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a challan was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 3. Notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 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 did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Additional 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 misappreciation by it of the relevant 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 counsel appearing for the respondents 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 by the learned trial Court and theirs not necessitating any 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. 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. Uncontrovertedly the deceased was a passenger on board of bus bearing No. HP-36-0398. At the relevant time, the aforesaid bus was driven by the accused/respondent herein. The accused is alleged to without facilitating a safe egress therefrom of the deceased abruptly galvanize the relevant bus into motion whereupon the deceased is alleged to fall onto the road, in sequel whereto, she sustained a fatal injury. The post mortem report comprised in Ext.PA unravels qua the demise of deceased being ascribable to =hemorrhagic shock leading to cardiac respiratory arrest'. Apparently the demise of one Pooja an occupant of bus aforesaid occurred on hers suffering fracture of pelvis sequelled by hers purportedly falling onto the road from a moving bus. 10. The learned trial Court while recording an order of acquittal upon the accused/respondent herein had alluded to the testimonies of eye witnesses to the occurrence, all of whom except PW-8 reneged from their previous statements recorded in writing. Necessarily hence the learned trial Court concluded of with the testification of purported eye witnesses to the occurrence not lending vigour to the prosecution case, the genesis of the prosecution story propagated in the F.I.R. comprised in Ext.PW-1/B not warranting any acceptance. As aforestated all eye witnesses to the illfated occurrence except PW-8 omitted to lend succor to the prosecution version. The efficacy of the testimony of PW-8 brother of deceased stood concluded by the learned trial Court to stand undermined by the factum of his being an interested witness. The aforesaid reason as stands assigned by the learned trial Court to dispel the vigour of the testification of PW-8 may not be sufficient to affirm the findings of acquittal recorded by it upon the accused/respondent herein preeminently when the learned defence counsel while subjecting him to cross-examination has not put any suggestion to him personifying the factum of his not being an eye witness to the occurrence. Absence of the aforesaid suggestions to PW-8 rather despite other eye witnesses to the occurrence not supporting the prosecution case was sufficient to record a conclusion qua the prosecution succeeding in proving the genesis of the occurrence comprised in the F.I.R. embodied in Ext.PW-1/B. Even if the defence has by not putting apposite suggestions to either PW-8 or to the Investigating Officer concerned hence efficaciously not propagated its defence qua the ill fated demise of an occupant of the bus driven at the relevant time by the accused/respondent herein arising not from hers suffering fatal injuries on hers falling onto the road from a moving bus given the accused respondent herein galvanizing it in motion without permitting hers safely egressing therefrom rather her demise occurring on hers colliding with a tractor which arrived at the relevant site of occurrence. Nonetheless omissions in support of the aforesaid defence does not empower the learned Additional Advocate General to contend of with hence the defence not concerting the aforesaid espousals its hence acquiescing to the factum of the ill fated demise of an occupant of bus aforesaid occurring during the course of hers alighting therefrom nor also he stands empowered to canvass qua the defence hence acquiescing to the factum of the accused respondent herein while not facilitating her safe egress therefrom his hence apparently negligently driving the bus nor thereupon it would be imperative for this Court to conclude of the penal liability constituted in the charge standing convincingly established against the accused respondent herein. 11. Otherwise too, though the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General is extremely impressive also may constrain this Court to thereupon record an inference of the accused respondent herein by proactively waiving in the manner foresaid his defence, his hence acquiescing to the relevant propagations made by the prosecution. Nonetheless the stark imminent fact which emerges from a perusal of Ext.PW-7/A embodying therein the site plan whereat the relevant occurrence took place is qua PW-8 alighting from the relevant bus at point ?G? whereas the deceased at a distance of 70 meters therefrom stands unravelled therein to suffer her demise. Nonetheless the stark imminent fact which emerges from a perusal of Ext.PW-7/A embodying therein the site plan whereat the relevant occurrence took place is qua PW-8 alighting from the relevant bus at point ?G? whereas the deceased at a distance of 70 meters therefrom stands unravelled therein to suffer her demise. The aforesaid graphic depictions occurring in Ext.PW-7/A which stands relied upon by the prosecution visibly overcome the efficacy, if any, of the testimony of PW-8 also thereupon rather the testimonies of other eye witnesses to the occurrence wherein they reneged from their previous statements recorded in writing do assume vigour besides the espousal made herebefore by the learned Additional Advocate General of the sole testimony of a credible eye witness to the occurrence comprised in the deposition of PW-8 being sufficient to constrain this Court to reverse the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is also concomitantly bereft of any legal sinew. The reason for benumbing the arguments addressed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General apparently stands foisted upon the trite factum of the aforesaid revelations occurring in Ext.PW-7/A wherein a graphic articulation stands pronounced qua PW-8 alighting from the relevant bus at a stage prior to the deceased alighting therefrom. The aforesaid factum leads to a further concomitant inference of both not simultaneously alighting therefrom besides thereupon also an inference is erectable qua at the stage where PW-8 alighted from the bus, its driver thereat stopping it, it being an ear marked place for its stoppage whereas the deceased at an unear-marked place for its stoppage voluntarily concerting to thereat disembark therefrom, wherefrom it is apt to conclude of the accused respondent herein neither by his not applying the brakes of the bus hence prohibiting her safe egress therefrom nor it can be concluded of the accused respondent being penally inculpable for the charges for which he stood tried. Contrarily reiteratedly it has to be concluded of the deceased at the relevant unearmarked place for the stoppage of the bus voluntarily trying to egress therefrom. In aftermath, no imputation of penal negligence can be ascribed to the accused/respondent herein. Contrarily reiteratedly it has to be concluded of the deceased at the relevant unearmarked place for the stoppage of the bus voluntarily trying to egress therefrom. In aftermath, no imputation of penal negligence can be ascribed to the accused/respondent herein. Accentuated strength to the aforesaid inference stands marshaled from the factum of the testimony of PW-8 holding no veracity, inference whereof stands spurred by the factum of his evidently alighting from the bus not simultaneously alongwith his deceased sister rather his alighting therefrom earlier to the departure therefrom of his deceased sister whereupon he stood disabled to sight the factum of hers gaining fatal injuries in the manner he espouses in his testification besides thereupon his testification in disconcurrence to the testifications of other eye witnesses to the occurrence looses credibility. 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 therefrom 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, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgement is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.