JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment rendered on 03.10.2007 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. Case No. 12FTC/10 of 2007, where by, he set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded upon the accused/respondent herein, by the learned trial Court. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 2.12.1999, at about 8 P.M., one Jasvinder Singh was going on his scooter No. HP-12-0509 from Police Station, Parwanoo to Sector 3, Parwanoo. When he reached at Kasauli Chowk, Parwanoo, a truck bearing No. HP-11-2333, allegedly being driven by the accused rashly and negligently hit his scooter from the side as a result of which he along with scooter had fallen down and sustained injuries. The accused, after the accident had allegedly driven away the truck from the spot. Jaswinder Singh lodged report with the police on the basis of which FIR was recorded at Police Station, Parwanoo. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer concerned completed the codel formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/respondent herein for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the IPC. In an appeal preferred there from by the accused/respondent herein before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P, the latter reversed the apposite findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court in its judgment also he acquitted the accused of the offences. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondent by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P, the latter reversed the apposite findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court in its judgment also he acquitted the accused of the offences. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondent by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P.. The Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation by him of the 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 being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent here in has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation by him of the 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. The complainant was atop scooter bearing No. HP-12-0609, on arrival where of at Kasauli Chowk, Parwanoo, whereat a truck bearing registration No. HP- 11-2333 stood parked on the inappropriate side of the road, it collided with the latter, collision inter se the afore said vehicles occurred, on the aforesaid truck standing abruptly driven by the accused, besides it standing suddenly put into motion by its driver, where upon a penally incupable role stood ascribed to the accused/respondent. In sequel to the aforesaid collision, the complainant sustained injuries on his person, injuries whereof stand reflected in the apposite medical certificate borne on Ex. PW5/B. The learned Appellate Court imputed preponderance to the factum qua the independent ocular witnesses to the occurrence reneging from their previous statements recorded in writing also qua theirs not clinchingly deposing qua the accused assuredly being the person, who, at the relevant time occupied the driver's seat of the relevant truck, thereupon, it pronounced an order of acquittal upon the accused. However, the aforesaid reason as stood assigned by the learned Appellate Court to reverse the findings of conviction pronounced upon the accused by the learned trial Court, is unamenable to acceptance, even its slighting the testification of the owner of the vehicle, namely, PW-7 Smt. Madhu Kanwar, who therein categorically voiced qua the accused/respondent herein standing engaged by her as driver in the relevant truck, is grossly unwarranted. Consequently, when, thereupon, the factum of the accused/respondent, at the relevant time occupying the driver seat of the relevant truck, hence, stood conclusively established also concomitantly, his identity stood clinched dehors the purported ocular witnesses to the relevant incident not establishing his identity, it was insagacious for the learned Appellate Court to discard her testimony or to impute sanctity qua the factum aforesaid occurring in the testification of the purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence. In aftermath, with the identity of the accused/respondent standing hence convincingly established by the prosecution, thereupon, it stands concluded qua its succeeding in establishing the charge against the accused/respondent. 10. Even though, the purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence did not sustain the charge yet the sole testification of the complainant when construed in tandem with the factum of the accused/respondent fleeing from the site of occurrence hence evinces a marked echoing qua his aforesaid conduct being inconsistent with his innocence, surging forth whereof, dehors the purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence not sustaining the charge, hence, capatalizes a firm conclusion from this Court qua the findings of conviction recorded upon the accused by the learned trial Court standing based upon a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded here in above, this Court holds that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned 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 Addl. Sessions Judge concerned suffers from a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 12. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. In sequel, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una in Case No. 12 FTC/10 of 2007 is quashed and set aside and the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court in Case No.84/2 of 2000 is affirmed and maintained. 12. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. In sequel, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una in Case No. 12 FTC/10 of 2007 is quashed and set aside and the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court in Case No.84/2 of 2000 is affirmed and maintained. The learned trial Court is directed to hence forth put into prompt execution the sentences as imposed by it upon the convict/respondent herein. Records be sent back forth with.