JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Court No. (VI), Shimla, H.P. rendered on 25.07.2007 in Crl. Case No. 164/2 of 2006/05, whereby, he acquitted the accused/respondent herein for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 5.11.2004 at about 7.20 p.m. at Sanjauli Chowk, accused Digvijay Thakur was driving a Tata Safari vehicle bearing No. DL-1CC-9908 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and by such driving he hit his vehicle with one Viraj Sharma and his daughter, due to which he fell and the tyre of the aforesaid vehicle passed over the legs of Viraj Sharma and he thereby sustained simple as well as grievous injuries on his person. 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, 337 and 338 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 9 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. 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. 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. In sequel to the accused/respondent herein purportedly negligently driving his vehicle, it struck one Viraj Sharma and his daughter, whereupon, Viraj Sharma sustained injuries as stand borne on the apposite MLC embodied in Ex.PW5/A. The aforesaid collision inter se the apposite vehicle allegedly rashly and negligently driven by the accused/respondent with both Viraj and his daughter, who was at the relevant time was accompanying the former, occurred at a busy thoroughfare located at Sanjauli Chowk. The reason which prevailed upon the learned trial Court to pronounce an order of acquittal upon the accused/respondent herein stands hinged upon the factum of PW-4, an eye witness to the occurrence omitting to in his testification enunciate therein with specificity qua the accused/respondent herein negligently driving his vehicle at the relevant site of occurrence nor his with explicitly enumerating qua thereupon it striking one Viraj Sharma and his daughter, who at the relevant time was accompanying him. The effect of his with non-specificity besides with lack of explicitly delineate therein any ascription of an incriminatory role of negligence vis-a-vis the accused/respondent does benumb the propagation of the prosecution embedded in the charge to which the accused/respondent stood subjected to face trial. 10. The effect of his with non-specificity besides with lack of explicitly delineate therein any ascription of an incriminatory role of negligence vis-a-vis the accused/respondent does benumb the propagation of the prosecution embedded in the charge to which the accused/respondent stood subjected to face trial. 10. Be that as it may, the learned Deputy Advocate General has contended with immense force qua the mere factum of PW-4, an eye witness to the occurrence not supporting the prosecution case standing over come by PW-1, another ocular witness to the occurrence with utmost unequivocality in his testification embodied in his examination-in-chief making communications therein qua the accused/respondent negligently driving his vehicle at Sanjauli Chowk whereupon it struck the person of one Viraj Sharma and his daughter, who was accompanying him at the relevant time. The aforesaid submission as addressed by the learned Deputy Advocate General before this Court stands rested upon his reading the testification of PW-1 occurring only in his examination-in- chief whereas he has omitted to read the testification of PW-1 as occurs in his cross-examination whereas for drawing any inference qua his testification occurring in his examination-in-chief succoring the propagation of the prosecution, the apposite echoings made by him in his cross-examination are also enjoined to be read in conjunction therewith whereupon only on non occurrence of any inter se contradictions in the relevant echoings occurring in the examination-in-chief of PW-1 vis-a-vis the echoings made by him qua the ill-fated occurrence in his cross-examination would enhance the veracity of his testification qua the ill-fated occurrence embodied in his examination-in-chief. While hence proceeding to gauge the veracity of the testification of PW-1 manifested in his examination-in-chief, this Court proceeds to appraise it along with his testification occurring his cross-examination wherein he has acquiesced to the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross-examination qua the accident occurring at Sanjauli Chowk, a busy thoroughfare also has acquiesced to the apposite suggestion qua at the site of occurrence the respondent/accused maneuvering a U-turn, whereat another traffic constable named Gudu Lal was also performing duty whereupon the Investigating Officer concerned stood enjoined to also associate the aforesaid Gudu Lal in the relevant investigations carried by him qua the occurrence, whereas, his remaining omitted to be associated by the Investigating Officer in the relevant investigations does constrain an inference significantly with PW-4 not supporting the prosecution case also with PW-1 in his cross-examination omitting to with aplomb certainty negative an apposite suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross-examination qua Viraj Sharma suffering injuries on his person on account of his, without his adhering to the standards of due care and caution his at the relevant time attempting to cross the road, does beget an inference of one Viraj Sharma at the relevant time while his standing accompanied by his daughter, his without adhering to the standards of due care and caution his making an attempt to cross the road, whereupon injuries stood entailed upon his person. 11. An apt corollary of the aforesaid discussion is qua the prosecution miserably failing to efficaciously prove the trite factum of the injuries begotten on the person of Viraj Sharma standing sequeled by his standing struck by the apposite vehicle being allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. 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 there from the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 13. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed and judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.