JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, H.P. whereby he pronounced an order of acquittal upon the accused qua the offences allegedly committed by him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.2004 at about 3.00 p.m near Nauti Khad, Mashobra, accused Roop Lal was driving a Truck bearing No. PB-08A-6675 on public highway in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger to the human life and personal safety of the others, due to which accused dashed the said truck against Alto Car bearing No. HP-62-0960 and also due to his rash or negligent act of driving caused simple as well as grievous hurt to the informant/Rajinder Chauhan as well as B.C.Chauhan and Bimla Chauhan. In this regard, the informant had intimated the police on which the police went to the spot and prepared the spot map and recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. A notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 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 pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal upon 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 sequelled 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. 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 has with considerable force and vigour 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. It stands espoused by the prosecution qua in sequel to the offending truck standing negligently driven by the accused/respondent, negligence whereof stands canvassed by it, to stand aroused by the factum of the accused/respondent proceeding to negotiate a curve from the inappropriate portion of the road, the ill-fated collision occurring inter se car bearing No. HP-62-0960 vis-à-vis truck bearing No. PB-08A-6675. In sequel to the collision which occurred inter se the truck driven by the accused bearing No. PB-08A-6675 vis.a.vis car bearing No. HP-62-0960, the informant Rajinder Chauhan besides B.S.Chauhan and Vimla Chauhan, suffered injuries on their respective persons injuries whereof stand depicted in the respective MLS prepared vis.a.vis them, MLCs whereof stand comprised in Ext.PW-12/A, Ext.PW-12/B and Ext.PW-12/C. 10. The injured/victims in their respective depositions comprised in their respective examinations in chief, echoed versions qua the ill-fated collision, in befitting corroboration qua the unfoldments in respect thereto embodied in the apposite F.I.R, borne on Ext. PW-14/B, besides they deposed with consistency vis-à-vis their respective previous statements recorded in writing. Consequently, their respective testifications are bereft of any stain of any inter se contradictions occurring in their respective examinations in chief vis.a.vis their respective cross-examinations, whereupon credibility qua their respective testified versions qua the occurrence stood enjoined to be imputed by the learned trial Court also with their deposing a version qua the occurrence with utmost intra se corroboration besides their respective testifications qua the occurrence remaining un-shattered during the exacting ordeal of a rigorous cross-examination, whereto they subjected to, by the learned defence counsel also thereupon their respective testifications acquire an enhanced virtue of credibility. However, the learned trial Court proceeded to dis-impute credence vis-à-vis their respective testifications despite theirs being injured/victims in the relevant collision, collision whereof occurred inter se the offending truck and the relevant car whereon they stood borne. The reasons as propounded by the learned trial Court to disimpute credence qua the testifications of the aforesaid injured/victims, ensued from the factum qua the spot map brone on Ext.PW-14/A, at mark ‘A” thereof, echoing qua broken pieces of glass(es) of both the vehicles standing scattered thereat, whereas theirs remaining uncollected by the Investigating Officer despite theirs constituting the best link evidence, qua the site of occurrence, hence warranting erection of an inference qua thereupon the charge framed upon the accused standing jettisoned. However, the aforesaid reason propounded by the learned trial Court for pronouncing an order of acquittal upon the accused, is extremely shaky, significantly when PW-14 who prepared site plan embodied in Ext.PW-14/A has in his testification made visible underscorings therein qua its preparation occurring at the site of occurrence besides thereat the posture/position of the relevant vehicle remaining undisturbed, thereupon implicit reliance was imputable thereon, unless suggestions stood purveyed qua him, marking the factum qua his contriving its preparation. However, the aforesaid suggestions remained unpurveyed to him by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross-examination, wherefrom an inference stands engendered, qua the reflections occurring therein being bereft of any vice of doctoring, hence warranting imputation of credence thereon. The learned counsel for the appellant contends qua the vigour of the depictions occurring in site plan, suffering enfeeblement, arising from the factum of PW-2 Munish Kumar though deposing in his examination in chief qua its preparation occurring in his presence yet his while standing subjected to cross-examination, contradicting the aforesaid factum, thereupon an inference ensuing, qua the preparation of site plan borne in Ext.PW-14/A being amenable to a derivative qua its standing fabricated also thereupon the depictions held therewithin not warranting any imputation of credence thereon. However, the aforesaid contention reared before this Court by the learned counsel for the accused, is wholly unworthwhile, as the Investigating Officer concerned, while standing subjected to cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, has denied suggestions put to him thereat, qua his preparing site plan in the house of Munish Kumar besides has denied suggestions put to him qua both Munish Kumar and Dharam Dass recording their presence at the time contemporaneous qua the ill fated collision occurring thereat, thereupon with no apposite suggestions standing put to him for corroborating the testification occurring in the cross-examination of PW-2 qua site plan held in Ext.PW-14/A standing fabricated by the Investigating Officer concerned, fabrication whereof stands ascribed qua him qua his not proceeding to take the appropriate measurements at the relevant sight of occurrence rather his contriving its preparation at the house of the nephew of Munish Kumar, thereupon omission of the aforesaid suggestion to the Investigating Officer concerned rather constrains an inference qua the echoings made by PW-2 in his cross-examination qua site plan standing prepared in the house of his nephew hence not acquiring any tenacity, conspicuously, also when the apposite suggestion put to the Investigating Officer by the learned defence counsel, marks, the factum qua the latter preparing the site plan at the house of PW-2 and not at the house of the nephew of PW-2, thereupon also it appears qua the aforesaid communication occurring in the cross-examination of PW-2 wherein he belies his earlier deposition existing in his cross-examination qua site plan standing prepared in his presence, not in its entirety holding any vigour, its articulation by him being perfunctory. Contrarily, the effect of the aforesaid contradistinct suggestions put to PW-2 and PW-14 qua the place whereat Ext.PW-14/A stood prepared, is per se theirs marking the factum qua the defence contriving the aforereferred espousal, rendering hence the echoings held therewithin to concomitantly hold no tenacity. 11. The testimony of the complainant besides of the victims qua the relevant occurrence when warrants imputation of credence thereupon, also thereupon the factum of non-collection of broken pieces of glass(es) by the Investigating Officer from the relevant sight of occurrence is construable to be insignificant, importantly when the reflections occurring in site plan stand concluded hereinabove, to hold vigour, whereupon the testifications of PW-1 and PW-2 even if they make bespeakings therein, at purported variance vis.a.vis. the depositions of the complainant/injured/victims are hence also unworthwhile, significantly when the prosecution did not lead them into the witness box to render an eye witness account qua the relevant occurrence rather it led them into the witness box, in proof of the relevant memos, theirs being signatories thereof. 12. Be that as it may, with both the vehicles, standing concluded by the mechanical expert concerned to be road worthy besides pliable whereupon hence with both the vehicles driven by the accused and by the complainant, not suffering from any mechanical defect, hence enjoined the accused to manoeuvre the offending truck on its appropriate portion of the curve, rather inappropriate side of the road. Consequently, this court is constrained to conclude qua the learned trial Magistrate omitting to appreciate the aforesaid best pieces of evidence, emphatically pronouncing upon the guilt of the accused/respondent. In aftermath, reinforcingly, it can be formidably concluded, qua the findings returned by the learned trial Court meriting interference. In summa, the verdict recorded by the learned trial Magistrate suffers from a gross infirmity as well as a perversity of non appraisal of the relevant and germane evidence whereupon this Court is constrained to reverse the findings of acquittal pronounced upon the accused. The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is quashed and set-aside. The accused is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC. The accused be produced before this Court on 26th April, 2017 for his thereon being heard on the quantum of sentence.