JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment rendered on 17.3.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba in Crl. Case No. 96-1-03/99, where by, he acquitted the accused for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 26.5.1998, complainant Reena Devi recorded her statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C., with HC Narinder Kumar to the effect that on 26.5.1998 at about 10 a.m., she along with her aunt (Bua) Jai Dei was coming Sitla Temple for offering prayer and she had boarded into a bus at about 10.25 a.m. at bus stand Bhadrum. There was a great rush in the bus and when the bus stopped near Sitla bridge then, a person alighted from it and as soon as complainant tried to get down from the bus, then, conductor gave a whistle and driver started driving the bus as there was a rush at bus stop Sitla Bridge. Complainant fell down on the road from the bus and received simple injuries. The incident occurred by rash or negligent conduct of conductor and driver of the bus. Consequently, an FIR was registered in the concerned police station. There after, 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 theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were 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 acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent here in. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondent by the learned trial Court. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent here in. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondent by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Advocate General for the State has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation by it of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation by it 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 standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents herein has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court 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. When the complainant/injured was in the process of alighting from bus bearing No.48-0826, its conductor by blowing “whistle”, hence, signaled the driver qua her safely egressing there from, whereupon, co-accused driver drove it negligently, sequelling the victim/complainant, who yet had not safely egressed there from to fall onto the road, whereupon, she suffered injuries on her person as stand reflected in the apposite medical certificate borne on Ex.PW5/A. The prosecution stood enjoined to prove the imperative factum of both the co-accused, the driver and the conductor of the bus respectively holding the relevant mens rea qua the apposite penal inculpability ascribed qua them arising from the co-accused conductor without ascertaining qua the victim/complainant making a safe departure from the bus, his yet blowing “whistle” qua the victim/complainant safely egressing there from, signal where of led the co-accused driver also without his not personally ascertaining the said factum, to his hence proceed to drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner, where upon, the victim fell from the bus onto the road, in sequel whereof, injuries stood entailed upon her. 10. 10. To succor the version embodied in the FIR borne on Ex.PW6/D, the complainant/victim stepped into the witnesses box, wherein, she spelt out qua the blowing of “whistle” by co-accused conductor standing engendered by his omitting to adhere to the standards of due care and caution arising from the factum of his not ascertaining the trite factum qua hers safely disembarking from the relevant vehicle, though, the aforesaid factum probandum voiced by the victim, stands lent corroborative vigour by PW-2, nonetheless, the deposition of PW-2 is discardable arising from the factum of the complainant/victim not disclosing in the apposite FIR qua hers standing accompanied by PW-2, omission whereof is significant, especially, when PW-2 is evidently a close relative of the complainant. More over, what further stains the testimony of PW-2 stands comprised in the factum of the Investigating Officer concerned belatedly recording her statement on 13.6.1998 with respect to the relevant accident which occurred prior thereto on 26.05.1998, there upon, also hers belatedly standing associated by the Investigating Officer concerned, as a witness, to the relevant occurrence visibly arouses a suspicion qua the genesis of the prosecution case, wherefrom, on factum aforesaid standing construed in coagulation with the omission of the complainant to recite the name of PW-2 in the apposite FIR, an inevitable inference spurs qua PW-2 not along with the victim/complainant occupying the relevant bus nor hers, there upon, holding the capacity to render any ocular account in respect thereto, whereupon, her testimony in purported corroboration to the testimony of PW1 does not enjoy any probative worth. 11. 11. Be that as it may, even if, the sole testimony of the complainant, is sufficient to prove the genesis of the prosecution case, nonetheless, when the prosecution, for the reasons afore stated, invented a purported ocular witness thereto, thereupon, the apposite concert of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused gets stained besides when the other ocular witness to the occurrence PW-3 though also stood enjoined to with utmost tandem depose in conformity with the testimony of the complainant qua the co-accused conductor of the bus without ascertaining hers safely disembarking from the relevant bus, his blowing “whistle”, in sequel where to, the co-accused driver, drove the apposite bus at a rash and negligent pace, leading her to fall from the bus on to the road, hence, sequelling hers suffering injuries on her person, whereas, with PW-3, not in her testification rendered any echoings therein qua the aforesaid factum probandum, corollary thereof, is qua the prosecution thereupon not succeeding in proving charge qua both the coaccused/ respondents. 12. Even otherwise, the complainant in her deposition comprised in her cross-examination has purveyed affirmative answers to the apposite suggestions put to her by the learned defence counsel while holding her to cross-examination qua hers alighting from the front door of the relevant bus also she has acquiesced to the suggestions put thereat to her qua thereat there occurring a heavy congestion of passengers, all of whom were striving to alight there from, wherefrom, it is befitting to draw an inference qua an imminent jostling occurring amongst the passengers for facilitating their concert to alight there from, in sequel whereto, the victim/complainant appears to suffer a fall from the bus onto the road, falling whereof of the victim/complainant, hence, does not, prove any penal inculpability qua the accused/respondents. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded here in above, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a Whole some and harmonious manner apart there from the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forth with.