JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 26.11.2007 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nadaun District Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 108-II-2005, whereby he acquitted the respondent (for short “accused”) for the offences charged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.6.2005 Shri Ravinder Kumar was driving bus bearing registration no. HP-36-5325 enroute from Dharamshala to Hamirpur and Shri Pawan Kumar was Conductor in the said bus. Around 2.45 p.m. when the aforesaid bus reached ahead of Jol Sapar near B.Ed college, accused came from Hamirpur side on a motor cycle bearing No. HP-22A-0250 in an excessive speed and on seeing the vehicle in an excessive speed, the complainant stopped his bus, but the accused could not control the same and struck it against the complainant’s bus. Shri Suresh Kumar was also occupying the offending vehicle and as a result of accident, accused and pillion rider fell down on the road and suffered injures on their person. Rapat No. 16 Ex. PW-8/A was entered into the Daily Diary on the same day. On this, HC Amar Nath the, Investigating officer got the accused and pillion rider medically examined at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur and their MLCs were procured. Accused was found to have suffered simple and grievous injuries on his person whereas the simple injuries were found on the person of the pillion rider. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation 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 qua 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 12 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 claimed false implication. However, 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 qua the accused. 6. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he claimed false implication. However, 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 qua 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 se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the 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 a collision which occurred inter-se the bus driven by the complainant vis-a-vis the motorcycle driven by the accused, the pillion rider of the latter vehicle sustained injuries. The FIR qua the occurrence encloses therein ascription of a penally inculpable negligence qua the accused, comprised in his, despite the complainant who at the relevant time manned the steering wheel of the relevant bus, halting it, for facilitating the accused to, while driving the motorcycle at a high speed proceed ahead, his yet striking it against the stationary bus. 10. No reliance can stand imputed to site plan comprised in Ex.PW-10/A, inference whereof arises from the factum of there occurring evident display qua immediately subsequent to the relevant collision, the complainant carrying in the bus driven by him both the accused and the pillion rider who, at the relevant time of mishap, was atop, the offending vehicle, to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur, for theirs receiving treatment thereat. Since immediately subsequent to the occurrence hence the bus driven by the complainant stood removed from the relevant site of mishap thereupon the reflections occurring in Ex.PW-10/A stand rendered to stand construable to be both invented and contrived. 11. Since immediately subsequent to the occurrence hence the bus driven by the complainant stood removed from the relevant site of mishap thereupon the reflections occurring in Ex.PW-10/A stand rendered to stand construable to be both invented and contrived. 11. Be that as it may, the prosecution had depended upon the testifications of ocular witnesses qua the occurrence who in their respective testifications rendered with utmost intra-corroboration with the deposition of the complainant, made echoings therein in tandem with ascription of a penally inculpable role qua the accused, as embodied in the notice of accusation. However, the testifications of the purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence may not gain any credence evidently with the complainant in the apposite FIR not enunciating therein, the trite factum qua theirs occupying the bus at the relevant time nor obviously his disclosing their names therein. Moreover, for erecting a firm conclusion qua theirs occupying the bus driven by the complainant significantly when the defence espouses qua theirs neither occupying the relevant vehicle driven by the complainant nor hence theirs holding the apposite capacity to render an ocular version thereto, thereupon the prosecution was also under a solemn obligation, for dispelling the aforesaid factum, to adduce on record the relevant tickets collected from them, by the investigating Officer. However with the investigating Officer, evidently not collecting the tickets from the aforesaid PWs, who purportedly eye witnessed the occurrence, thereupon enhances the espousal of the defence qua theirs not occupying the vehicle driven by the complainant nor obviously thereupon theirs holding any capacity to render a vivid ocular account thereto. Since the espousal of the defence anchored on the aforesaid omissions of the investigating Officer, thereupon attains vigor contrarily an inference stands constrained qua the prosecution not adducing clinching and best evidence comprised in its leading into the witness box any eye witness's to the occurrence. Also the purported eye witnesses qua the occurrence led into the witness box by the prosecution for succoring the genesis of the prosecution case cannot for the reasons aforesaid hold any creditworthiness rendering any reliance thereupon to be wholly unwarranted. 12. The best evidence in proof of the notice of accusation whereto the accused stood subjected to, stands embodied in the testification of PW-7 (Suresh) pillion rider of the offending vehicle. However, he, too omitted to support the prosecution case. 12. The best evidence in proof of the notice of accusation whereto the accused stood subjected to, stands embodied in the testification of PW-7 (Suresh) pillion rider of the offending vehicle. However, he, too omitted to support the prosecution case. In his deposition he has made communications wherein he has contrarily exculpated the ascription of penally inculpable negligence vis-a-vis the accused/respondent. His reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing also with the learned APP while holding him to cross-examination neither putting any apposite suggestion to him nor hence evoking any elicitations from him for thereupon belying his testification occurring in his examination-in-chief wherein he exculpated the guilt of the accused, conspicuously when he held the capacity to adduce the best clinching evidence in support of notice of accusation, fosters an inference qua the prosecution case hence faltering. 13. A wholesome analysis of evidence on record portrays qua the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said qua the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal hence committing any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court meriting any interference. 14. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.