JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 2.1.2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.4, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Police Challan No.255/I/04/255/II/04, whereby she acquitted the respondent (for short ‘accused’) for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.3.2004 at about 9.00 a.m. at Nerchowk accused Balvinder Kumar was driving a Maruti van bearing No.HP-02-6573 in a rash and negligent manner and at the same time complainant Parma Ram, alongwith Chavi Ram, was walking by the side of the road with his bullocks and the accused while driving the car rashly and negligently hit the complainant causing injuries to him. The injured/complainant was taken to hospital for medical treatment. A case was got registered against the accused, police visited the spot, prepared the site plan and took into possession the Maruti van bearing No. HP-02-6573 for its mechanical examination. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigations 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 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 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. However, he did not choose to lead any 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 by it of the relevant 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 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 respondent has with considerable force and vigour 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 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. Victim complainant PW-3 lodged F.I.R. qua the relevant occurrence which stands borne on Ext.PW-3/A. PW-6 in his testification while proving the apposite MLC prepared qua the victim embedded in Ext.PW-6/A has made an emphatic pronouncement therein qua the occurrence of injuries on the person of the victim being sequelable in a road side accident. The learned trial Court had pronounced a verdict of acquittal qua the accused respondent who stands alleged to commit the relevant charged offence comprised in his while negligently driving his vehicle his striking it with PW-3 who at the relevant time was occupying the road along with his bullocks whom he was thereat tending to. In sequel thereto the accused respondent carried the victim to hospital whereat he received treatment for the injuries suffered by him in a collision which occurred inter se the vehicle driven by him with PW-3. The ascription of penally inculpable negligence by the prosecution qua the accused respondent stands canvassed by the learned Deputy Advocate General to stand emphatically proven by the consistent testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. He canvasses qua the veracity of the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 not warranting theirs standing concluded as inaptly done by the learned trial Court to stand countervailed by the deposition of PW-4 also an eye witness to the occurrence merely for PW-4 omitting to lend support to the prosecution version comprised in his reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing. The espousal made here before by the learned Deputy Advocate General for seeking reversal of the verdict pronounced upon the accused/respondent enjoins this Court to incisively peruse the defence projected by the accused before the learned trial Court embedded in the factum of PW-3 occupying the road at the relevant time, road whereof also thereat evidently held a heavy congestion of vehicles besides thereat PW-3 was tending to his bullocks whereupon the defence has put apposite suggestions to the prosecution witnesses qua the bullocks on hearing the blaring sounds of sirens emanating from the vehicle occupying the road at the relevant time, theirs moving astray from their maneuvered direction by PW-3 whereupon they struck PW-3 where after on the latter abruptly appearing before the vehicle driven by the accused/respondent he suffered a collision with it, besides obviously on anvil thereof the defence espoused qua the striking of PW-3 by the vehicle driven by the accused respondent not being a sequel to any penally negligent act on the part of the accused respondent rather the collision which occurred inter se the vehicle driven by the accused respondent with PW-3 arising from PW-3 standing abruptly struck by the bullocks which he was tending to at the relevant time, who had for reasons afore-stated moved astray from their negotiated direction where after the abrupt appearance of PW-3 before the relevant vehicle not begetting the sequel of the vehicle driven by him directly striking PW-3 rather the reason for the relevant collision occurring with PW-3 being ascribable to after PW-3 suffering a jolt from the bullocks to whom he was tending to at the relevant time his thereafter begetting an abrupt collision with the vehicle driven by the accused. Consequently, the defence espouses qua theirs evidently not in the afore stated factual scenario surfacing any proven element of the accused respondent intentionally deviating from the standards of due care and caution nor any penal liability being fastenable upon him for the injuries suffered by PW-3. 10. Be that as it may, PW-1 and PW-2 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence did lend corroborative succor to the testifications of PW-3 the victim/complainant. 10. Be that as it may, PW-1 and PW-2 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence did lend corroborative succor to the testifications of PW-3 the victim/complainant. The vigour of the prosecution case qua PW-3 sustaining injuries in the manner manifested in F.I.R. embodied in Ext.PW-8/A primarily warranted emanation of taint free evidence of PW-3 qua the recitals borne thereon being free from any stain of compulsion or duress besides the contents embedded in Ext.PW-3/A arising from their volition making by PW-3 whereupon alone the genesis of the prosecution case embedded in Ext.PW-3/A would acquire probative sinew also thereupon the testifications of PW-1 and PW-2 in purported corroboration qua the testification of PW-3 would hold a concomitant vigour of tenacity. Contrarily if the testification of PW-3 holds there within the afore stated taints it besides evidence in purported corroboration thereto would fall apart rather reiteratedly the testifications of PW-1 and PW-2 in purported corroboration to the taint ridden testification of PW-3 would be construable to stagger besides the testifications of PW- 1 and PW-2 would be construable to be a sequel of the Investigating Officer for meteing corroboration to Ext.PW-3/A his concerting to engineer the statements of PW-1 and PW-3. A close scrutiny of the deposition of PW-3 embodied in his cross-examination unveils qua the Investigating Officer suo motu recording the contents of Ext.PW-3/A also therein he communicates qua the contents of Ext.PW-3/A neither standing read over to him nor his reading its contents whereupon it is to be concluded qua without his dictating the recitals of Ext.PW-3/A to the Investigating Officer nor thereafter his comprehending its contents, his proceeding to append his signatures thereon whereupon it is to be concluded qua the recitals embedded in Ext.PW-3/A being not a voluntary making of PW-3 rather the recitals embedded therein standing engineered by the Investigating Officer. In aftermath, the genesis of the prosecution case which stands testified in purported corroboration thereto by PW-3 in his examination in chief stands eroded of its truth. The apt sequel thereof is qua the purported corroboration lent thereto by PW-1 and PW-2 standing obviously concluded to be a sequel to the Investigating Officer tutoring besides inventing their previous statement recorded in writing whereupon their testifications in corroboration thereto do not acquire any tenacity or vigour. Corollary of the aforesaid discussion is qua the genesis of the prosecution case embodied in Ext.PW-3/A standing benumbed. 11. Corollary of the aforesaid discussion is qua the genesis of the prosecution case embodied in Ext.PW-3/A standing benumbed. 11. Be that as it may here at with PW-4 supporting the propagation of the defence, though he obviously reneged from his previous statement recorded in writing rather contrarily being construable for imputation of reliance thereon besides credence being placed thereupon significantly when on his reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing the learned APP on obtaining an affirmative permission of the learned trial Court to hold him to cross-examination though in course whereof he made a concerted bid therein to rip the tenacity of the disclosures made by him in his examination in chief yet the afore stated concert of the APP to rip the tenacity of his deposition embodied in his examination in chief wherein he had lent succor to the propagation of the defence did not yield any fruitful outcome to the prosecution. Consequently, even though PW-4 reneged from his previous statement in writing yet when he stood subjected thereafter to a rigorous examination by the learned APP whereat his testimony comprised in his examination in chief remained un-scuttled constrains this Court to conclude qua thereupon his testimony in support of the defence acquiring credit besides tenacity being imputable thereupon. Even the testifications occurring in the examinations-in-chief of prosecution witnesses who therein renege from their previous statements recorded in writing are not per se thereupon rendered unreadable vis-à-vis the propagations articulated therein holding leanings qua the defence especially when the relevant echoings supportive of the defence occurring in the relevant examination-in-chief acquire succor from the factum of the testification of the victim besides of purported eye witnesses to the relevant occurrence standing ingrained with a taint besides blemish also when the testification of a hostile prosecution witnesses despite withstanding the rigors of an exacting cross-examination whereupon his espousal in his examination-in-chief supportive of the defence hence remain un-shattered, contrarily thereupon his un-taint ridden relevant testification warranting imputation of credence thereto. 12. 12. The summum bonum of the above discussion is qua the depositions of PW-3 besides PW-1 and PW-2 in purported corroboration thereto not being amenable to imputation of reliance thereupon contrarily the deposition of PW-4 being amenable to imputation of credence besides reliance thereupon whereupon this Court concludes qua the defence succeeding in proving qua the injuries begotten on the person of PW-3 being a sequel to the latter while standing struck by the bullocks occupying the road at the relevant time his thereafter suo motu abruptly striking the vehicle driven by the accused respondent, in sequel whereof no penally inculpable negligence is ascribable to the accused/respondent. Also with the conduct of the accused respondent comprised in his carrying the victim to hospital when is conduct magnificatory of his innocence, hence it negates the charge. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court 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. 14. In view of the above, 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.