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.3, Shimla 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 4.6.2004 complainant Anil Kumar was driving taxi bearing No. HP-02-4098 and was on its way from Longwood to Kanlog. It is alleged that Saran Singh was sitting inside the vehicle and his daughter was also boarding the same taxi. It is alleged that at about 9.10 a.m when he reached at Naltu where one truck bearing No.HR-69-2333 was coming from front side in a wrong direction and collided with his Maruti Van. It is alleged that Saran Singh sustained injuries on his arm. The injured were brought to the hospital for medical treatment. During investigation I.O. prepared the spot map 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 and 338 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 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 in favour of 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. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted before this Court, that with the site plan borne on Ext.PW-9/C proving the fact of the offending vehicle driven by the accused being positioned on the inappropriate side of the road whereas the vehicle occupied by the victim PW-3 occupying the appropriate side of the road, hence on its anvil, the prosecution perse proving the charge. He also continues to submit that with the report of the mechanical expert borne on Ext.PW-4/A, proven by PW-4, revealing that the offending vehicle driven by the accused was not entailed with any blatant/patent defect, thereupon with Ext.PW-1/A pronouncing upon the roadworthiness of the offending vehicle, hence also the prosecution proving that the collision which occurred inter se the Maruti Van bearing No. HP-02-4098 vis-à-vis the offending vehicle driven by the accused, evidently arising from a sheer negligence on the part of the respondent/accused while driving the relevant offending vehicle. Furthermore he submits that with PW-6 who held the medical examination of the injured, proving the apposite MLC comprised in Ext.PW-6/B also his testifying that the injuries reflected therein being causeable on the person of the victim, in sequel to a road side accident, hence the prosecution assuredly succeeding in proving the charge. 10. The effect of the aforesaid submissions are in their entirety effaced, by the defence proving its espousal qua the accused/respondent, while driving the offending vehicle, his not transgressing the canons of due care and caution, given his, on an apposite signal purveyed to him by the driver of a bus moving ahead of the truck, hence preceding to overtake the bus which was moving ahead of the offending vehicle, hence his coming to strike the offending vehicle with the Maruti Van occupied by PW-3. The aforesaid espousal of the defence, is borne out by PW-2, an ocular witness to the occurrence purveying an apposite affirmative response, to a suggestion put to her during the course of hers being subjected to cross-examination by the learned defence counsel whereon a trite echoing is held that the driver of the bus which was moving ahead of the offending vehicle, purveying an apposite signal to the respondent accused, to proceed ahead, hence sequelling his endeavouring to over-take the bus aforesaid. An alike suggestion was put to the driver of the Maruti Car who testified as PW-7, during the course of his being subjected to cross-examination by the learned defence counsel. However, PW-4 omitted to categorically deny the apposite suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross-examination, with echoings therein that the ensual of the relevant collision which occurred inter se the offending vehicle vis-à-vis Maruti Car arising from the driver of the bus which was being plied ahead of the offending vehicle hence signalling the accused respondent, to over take it. The omission of PW-7 to purvey a categorical denial to the aforesaid suggestion rather his feigning ignorance with respect to the aforesaid espousal of the learned defence counsel, does also constrain this Court to conclude that hence his tacitly conceding to the espousal of the defence also hence his corroborating the version qua the occurrence, meted by PW-2 in her cross-examination, wherein she acquiesces to the suggestion put to her by the learned defence counsel that the accused respondent, on a signal purveyed to him by the driver of a bus being plied ahead of the offending vehicle, his endeavouring to over take it. With the accused succeeding in proving its defence also with the prosecution not establishing, that despite the accused respondent receiving a signal from the driver of the bus, plying ahead of the offending vehicle, his yet sighting the occurrence of the Maruti Car on the appropriate side of the road whereupon he may have been precluded to overtake it, begets an inevitable corollary that the collision which occurred inter se the relevant vehicles, was not aroused by sheer negligence of the accused/respondent in driving the offending vehicle rather it was aroused by his adhering to the signal purveyed to him by the driver of the bus, bus whereof was evidently, as testified by the Investigating Officer, plying ahead of the offending vehicle. The effect of the aforesaid is that there cannot be any conclusion that the accused respondent omitted to adhere to the standards of the due care and caution nor hence it can be concluded that any penally inculpable negligence is attributable to the accused. 11. For the reasons which stand recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record whereupon its judgment warrants no interference. 12. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.