JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 13.12.2007 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, in Criminal Case No. 10-I/2003, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent (for short “accused”) for the offences charged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.8.2002 complainant Sh. Dhanwant Singh, was deployed as conductor in bus bearing registration No. HP-34/7284 to cater Bhunter- Garagushaini. Shri Churamani was its driver. At about 11.45 a.m. the bus of the complainant was near village Kalheli when a tempo bearing No. HP 24-0427 arrived from the opposite side. The driver of the said tempo could not control his vehicle and hit the bus. In the collision which occurred inter-se the bus and tempo aforesaid, 4-5 passengers including one Gayatri Devi received injuries on their person. The Tempo went ahead and again hit against another Mini bus bearing registration No. HP-58-0429 and thereafter went off the road. The injured were shifted to District Hospital, Kullu for medical treatment where Gayatri Devi aforesaid died owing to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. Thereafter FIR was registered. 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 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 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 claimed innocence besides 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 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 se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of 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 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 tempo bearing registration No. HP-34-0427 driven by the accused vis-a-vis the bus bearing registration No. HP-34-7284 driven by PW-8 (Chura Mani), the passengers occupying the bus aforesaid suffered injuries. Gayatri Devi a passenger in the bus aforesaid driven by PW-8, suffered her demise, in sequel, to hers standing afflicted with injuries in the collision aforesaid. Post Mortem Report comprised in Ex. PW-4/D unveils qua the demise of aforesaid Gayatri Devi standing se-quelled by a head injury leading to Cardio respiratory arrest. 10. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution had led into the witness box three eye witnesses to the occurrence, who respectively testified as PW-1 (Dhanwant Singh, PW-5 (Balbir Singh) and PW-8 (Shri Chura Mani). 11. PW-1 in his testification occurring in his examination-in-chief, has made under-linings qua the accused negligently besides rashly driving his vehicle whereafter he continued to testify qua the collision which occurred inter-se the vehicles aforesaid standing caused by a penally culpable negligence of the accused in driving his vehicle aforesaid. In his testification, he also proves Ex. PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/D. However in his cross-examination, he has disclosed qua at the relevant time, his distributing tickets to the passengers occupying the bus whereupon he has proceeded to testify qua his thereupon standing incapacitated to depose with formidability qua the inculpable role in the relevant mishap of the driver of the bus or of the driver of the tempo. PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/D. However in his cross-examination, he has disclosed qua at the relevant time, his distributing tickets to the passengers occupying the bus whereupon he has proceeded to testify qua his thereupon standing incapacitated to depose with formidability qua the inculpable role in the relevant mishap of the driver of the bus or of the driver of the tempo. However, his testification occurring in his cross-examination though erodes the entire effect of the echoings made by him in his examination-in-chief wherein he has with utmost categoricality imputed penally inculpable negligence qua the accused, nonetheless his testification existing in his cross- examination appears to loose its apposite effect, in negating his testimony embodied in his examination-in-chief, significantly when he proves Ex. PW-1/D besides proves the occurrence of his signatures as a witness thereto. With PW-1 proving the aforesaid factum embodied in Ex.PW-1/D importantly the recital held therein qua the accused fleeing from the site of occurrence, also when the aforesaid factum stood not concerted to be belied by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross-examination thereupon an inevitable sequel generates qua the defence acquiscising qua the accused fleeing from the site of occurrence whereupon it is befitting to conclude qua the aforesaid acquiescence making vivid portrayals qua the conduct of the accused, conduct whereof , is wholly inconsistent with his innocence. 12. The other ocular witness to the occurrence testified as PW-5. In his testification embodied in his examination-in-chief he has with utmost specificity purveyed succor to the prosecution case. His deposition comprised in his cross-examination does not hold any e-choings qua his negating the effect of his deposition occurring in his examination-in-chief wherein he has emphatically pronounced qua the penally inculpable negligence of the accused. 13. In his testification embodied in his examination-in-chief he has with utmost specificity purveyed succor to the prosecution case. His deposition comprised in his cross-examination does not hold any e-choings qua his negating the effect of his deposition occurring in his examination-in-chief wherein he has emphatically pronounced qua the penally inculpable negligence of the accused. 13. Be that as it may PW-8 the driver of the bus bearing registration No. HP-34-7284 has in his examination-in-chief with intra-se corroboration vis-a-vis the testimonies embodied in the examinations-in-chief of PWs aforesaid ascribed therein a penally inculpable negligence vis-a-vis the accused, nonetheless, he, in his cross-examination had denied the factum of the accused driving the offending vehicle, however thereupon no conclusion can stand formed qua the identity of the accused in manning the steering wheel of the offending vehicle standing ousted besides benumbed, significantly when: (a) PW-1 has voiced therein qua the accused fleeing from the site of occurrence whereupon it has to stand concluded qua his identifying the accused to be the person who was manning the driver seat of the offending vehicle. (b) The aforesaid factum pronounced by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief standing not concerted to be shred of its efficacy by the learned defence counsel during the course of his holding him to cross-examination whereupon it is befitting to conclude qua the defence acquiscising to the factum aforesaid pronounced by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief. (c) PW-5 in his examination-in-chief has identified the accused present in Court to be the person who was manning the driver’s seat of the offending vehicle. The aforesaid factum remained also un-concerted to be belied by the learned defence counsel while subjecting him to cross examination thereupon the defence also acquiesces qua the accused manning the driver’s seat of the offending vehicle. 14. In aftermath no conclusion can stand formed merely on the anvil of the testimony of PW-8 qua the prosecution failing to establish the prime factum of the accused driving the relevant vehicle. 15. The learned counsel for the accused has contended with force qua all the aforesaid ocular witnesses to the occurrence being interested witnesses arising from the factum of theirs respectively being the conductor, owner besides driver of the relevant bus thereupon their versions qua the occurrence warrants dis-imputation of credence thereon. 15. The learned counsel for the accused has contended with force qua all the aforesaid ocular witnesses to the occurrence being interested witnesses arising from the factum of theirs respectively being the conductor, owner besides driver of the relevant bus thereupon their versions qua the occurrence warrants dis-imputation of credence thereon. However, the aforesaid factum whereupon the defence espouses qua theirs rendering a colored version qua the occurrence would hold vigor only when apposite suggestions stood put to the Investigating Officer by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross examination holding e-choings there within qua his holding a slanted and skewed investigation qua the occurrence. However the aforesaid suggestion stood not purveyed to him by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross examination whereupon it is apt to conclude qua defence failing to establish qua the investigating officer holding a slanted besides a skewed investigation qua the occurrence, comprised in his associating only the driver, conductor and the owner of the relevant bus. 16. Moreover, though apparently the bus driven by PW-8 stood at the relevant time occupied by passengers, however none of the passengers of the bus driven by PW-8 stood associated by the investigating Officer in the apposite investigations conducted by him qua the occurrence thereupon the learned counsel for the respondent contends qua it being perse inferable therefrom qua the investigating Officer excluding eruption of un-interested evidence qua the occurrence, comprised in his recording the statements of the passengers who were aboard the bus aforesaid. However, the mere non-association in the relevant investigations, by the Investigating Officer, of passengers occupying the bus would not beget an inference qua the investigating Officer holding a skewed investigation qua the occurrence unless forthright evidence stood concerted to be adduced by the defence in portrayal of his exclusion to associate the passengers occupying the bus aforesaid spurring from his holding leanings qua the driver, conductor besides the owner of the bus aforesaid. The aforesaid evidence stood comprised in the apposite suggestions standing purveyed to the Investigating Officer concerned by the learned defence counsel, nonetheless no suggestion stood purveyed by the learned defence counsel to the investigating Officer concerned while holding him to cross-examination, holding unveilings qua the exclusion by him in the apposite investigations of passengers occupying the relevant bus, standing aroused by his holding leanings vis-a-vis the aforesaid nor any suggestion stood put to the investigating Officer by the learned defence counsel while subjecting him to cross- examination qua despite the passengers occupying the relevant bus entailing him to record their statements his yet refusing to record their statements. 17. Consequently when for reasons aforesaid, the proven conduct of the accused fleeing from the site of accident is inconsistent with his innocence also when for reasons aforesaid this Court places reliance upon the testimony of PWs 1, 5 and 8, thereupon non-association in the relevant investigations, by the Investigating Officer, of passengers occupying the bus driven by PW-8, does hence withstand the test of his holding a fair investigation into the offences allegedly committed by the accused. 18. The learned trial Court had recorded findings of acquittal upon the accused on anvil of Ex. PW-2/B, where within it stands articulated qua the front tyres of the offending vehicle standing afflicted with a burst, whereupon it concluded qua the penally inculpable negligence ascribed by the prosecution qua the accused standing enfeebled, contrarily the relevant mishap spurring from sudden eruption of mechanical defects in the offending vehicle. However, any imputation of reliance upon Ex.PW-2/B by the learned trial Court, is wholly inapt, significantly when prior thereto, PW-2 in his report comprised in Ex.PW-2/A omitted to record the aforesaid factum, contrarily therein he had echoed qua no mechanical defects standing detected thereat by him in the offending vehicle whereupon when, obviously PW-2/A stood prepared by PW-2 at a time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the mishap, it warranted imputation of credence thereto whereas PW-2/B prepared subsequently thereto holding a narration in contradiction thereto appears to stand blemished with taints of doctoring whereupon no reliance is imputable. 19. The crux of the above discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court whereby it recorded findings of acquittal qua the accused stands reversed and set aside. 19. The crux of the above discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court whereby it recorded findings of acquittal qua the accused stands reversed and set aside. Accordingly, the respondent/accused stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Let the accused/convict be produced on 17.4.2017 before this Court for his being heard on the quantum of sentence. Records of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.