JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. rendered on 15.07.2006 in Crl. Case No. 36-I-2003, RBT No. 381-II-2003, whereby, she acquitted the accused/respondent herein for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the IPC and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that the injured/complainant was standing near Inder Pal Chowk on 3.4.2000 at about 9.30 a.m. along with Rajinder Kumar and Mohan Singh. In the meantime, a Van bearing NO. HP-02-6265 came from Hoshiarpur side which was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which he struck it with the complainant and caused injuries to him. On the aforesaid facts, FIR was registered in the police station concerned. The police started the investigations in the case and completed all the codel formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the trial Court, in which he claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent herein. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 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 the 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. 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. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below 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. PW-1 Hoshiar Singh besides PW-5 Rajinder Kumar and PW-6 Mohan Singh, all of whom at the relevant time were standing at the relevant site of occurrence, all depose in unison bereft of any intra se inconsistency qua the genesis of the prosecution case embodied in the relevant FIR borne on Ex.PW1/A. A close circumspect reading of their respective testifications unveil qua therein not occurring any inter se contradictions vis-a-vis their narrations qua the occurrence embodied in their respective examinations-in- chief vis-a-vis the apposite communications qua it articulated in their respective cross-examinations nor also their respective testifications convey qua theirs testifying with any vice of any intra se contradictions. Significantly, the learned trial Court was enjoined to mete deference to their unstained testifications qua the relevant occurrence, whereas, it has for grossly perverse or absurd reasons emanating from it grossly mis-appraising the creditworthy testifications of PW-1, PW5 and PW-6, proceeded to record an order of acquittal vis-a-vis the accused. 10. The MLC qua the victim borne on Ex.PW8/A underscores qua the doctor concerned, who held the victim/complainant to medical examination, noticing occurrence of injuries on his left foot, mouth, right shoulder and on his right hand. 11. The injuries as stand borne therein unfold qua not only the left foot holding injuries but injuries on other portion of the body of the victim also standing begotten thereon, in sequel to a collision occurring inter se the vehicle driven by the accused with PW-1. 11. The injuries as stand borne therein unfold qua not only the left foot holding injuries but injuries on other portion of the body of the victim also standing begotten thereon, in sequel to a collision occurring inter se the vehicle driven by the accused with PW-1. With PW-8 disclosing in the apposite MLC qua the victim qua there occurring bruises on his left foot weighed with the learned trial Court to underscore the worth of his testification qua the vehicle colliding with his person arousable from the factum qua with the victim evidently standing by the side of the road, thereupon the position occupied thereat by him warranting his suffering an injury on his right foot, injury whereof yet remained omitted to stand underscored in the apposite MLC. However, the aforesaid reasoning as stands propounded by the learned trial Court to belittle the creditworthiness of the testification of PW-1 besides the testifications of other ocular witnesses, who deposed as PW-5 and PW-6 is bereft of any tenacity given the learned trial Court omitting to revere the factum qua injuries other than the ones occurring on the left foot of the victim also standing pronounced in the apposite MLC borne on Ex.PW8/A also with the sanctity of the testifications rendered by PW-1 besides by other ocular witnesses to the relevant occurrence, who testified as PW-5 and PW-6 as occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief remaining for reasons afore stated uneroded thereupon they warranted imputation of credence thereon significantly when on theirs standing subjected to the ordeal of a rigorous cross-examination by the learned defence counsel they remained unscathed in the ordeal nor any communications occur there within in portrayal qua theirs at the relevant time not eye witnessing the occurrence, thereupon contrarily it was inapt for the learned trial Court to dis-impute credence to their relevant testifications qua the occurrence. 12. Furthermore, PW-4, the owner of the relevant vehicle in his examination-in-chief deposed qua since 2000, the accused/respondent his brother manning the driver's seat of the relevant vehicle. 12. Furthermore, PW-4, the owner of the relevant vehicle in his examination-in-chief deposed qua since 2000, the accused/respondent his brother manning the driver's seat of the relevant vehicle. With the aforesaid manifestations occurring in the testification of the owner of the relevant vehicle besides with the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross-examination, his not putting apposite suggestions to him to rip his aforesaid testification of its tenacity wherefrom the inevitable sequel is qua the accused/respondent herein at the relevant time manning the driver's seat of the relevant vehicle also with the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., his not making communications therein qua his at the relevant time not manning the driver's seat of the relevant vehicle rather some other person, specifically named by him driving the relevant vehicle at the relevant time, wherefrom, a conclusion can stand erected qua the defence acquiescing qua the accused manning the driver's seat of the relevant vehicle at the relevant time. 13. Be that as it may, delay, if any, occurring in the lodging of the FIR at the instance of the complainant/victim, who stood at the relevant time accompanied by his collegiates PW-5 and PW-6 stands sufficiently explained conspicuously arising from the defence counsel while holding PW-1 to cross-examination his putting an affirmative suggestion to him holding echoings therein qua the college whereto the aforesaid were to proceed standing located at a distance of 10 kilometers from the relevant site of occurrence whereto an affirmative answer stood purveyed by PW-1 besides with the defence counsel while holding PW-5 to cross-examination, putting an affirmative suggestion to him qua on the relevant day PW-1, PW-5 and PW6 standing enjoined to appear in the English paper scheduled to commence from 10 a.m. and lasting upto 1.00 pm., whereto an affirmative answer stood purveyed by PW-5, is an evident disclosure qua the defence thereupon acquiescing qua given the relevant accident occurring at 9.30 a.m., whereas, when for reasons aforesaid PW1 besides PW-5 and PW6 stood enjoined to take their examination scheduled from 10 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. at a place located at a distance of 10-12 kilometer from the site of occurrence qua theirs thereupon standing constrained to not promptly lodge an FIR qua the occurrence with the police station concerned, wherefrom a conclusion can stand drawn qua the delay in the lodging of the FIR standing satisfactorily explained. In sequel, it was inapt for the learned trial Court to conclude qua the delay as has occurred in the lodging of the FIR standing not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. 14. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent herein qua with the Investigating Officer in the site plan borne on Ex.PW8/A describing the site of occurrence to be triangular whereas in his testification his contradicting the aforesaid factum by voicing qua it being circular, would not erode the efficacy nor the credibility of the testifications of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6, as it appears to arise only for want of inapposite geometrical knowledge of the investigating officer concerned. 15. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has not 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 suffers from a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 16. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is allowed and judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside. Accordingly, the accused/respondent is convicted for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accused/respondent be produced before this Court on 28th December, 2016 for his being heard on the quantum of sentence.