JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict pronounced by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot, at Gohar, Mandi, H.P. where by he acquitted the accused for the charges framed against him for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Devi Singh had gone to place Kyoli Nal for his some domestic task. At about 1.20 p.m he reached at place Kyoli Nal thereat he heard noise of a jeep being rolled down from the road at Kenchimod. On this the complainant along with other persons went towards the spot and saw that the jeep had fallen into the nala and Tula Ram son of Almu a deaf and dumb had sustained injury on his head. It is the case of the prosecution that later on the complainant came to know that jeep bearing No. HP-53-2543 was going towards place Bhulah and when the jeep reached at a curve then due to skidding on snow had fallen down in the nala and when the jeep was rolling then it struck against Tula Ram. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant and 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. A charge stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 evidence in defence. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant 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. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant 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 being replaced by findings of conviction. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. In the site plan comprised in Ext.PW-10/C an observation occurs with respect to the skidding of the offending vehicle driven by the accused/respondent, while its being plied upon snow existing at the site of occurrence. In sequel to the aforesaid skidding of the offending vehicle “it” after striking the victim, rolled into a gorge. For proving the charge the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW-1, who in his examination in chief testified that the skidding of the offending vehicle being arose on its being driven at a brazen speed. Consequently, the learned Additional Advocate General contends that dehors existence of snow at the relevant site of occurrence, the speed at which the vehicle was plied, begot the sequel of its hitting the person present at the site of occurrence, where after it rolled into a deep gorge, whereupon he contends that the duty of due care and caution enjoined upon the accused, comprised in his driving the offending vehicle at a slow pace upon snow available at the site of occurrence, stood hence breached. Consequently, he submits that the charge against the accused is established. Consequently, he submits that the charge against the accused is established. However, the aforesaid submission warrants rejection, as the testification of the purported ocular witness to the occurrence “apparently” looses its vigour, in the light of his, in his cross-examination deposing that he at the relevant time was positioned ½ kilometer away from the site of occurrence, where from it is befitting to conclude that he obviously did not eye witness the occurrence nor also from his deposition comprised in his examination in chief it can be concluded that he had seen the offending vehicle driven by the accused at a brazen pace upon snow available at the site of occurrence nor it can be concluded that the enjoined duty of care and caution stood breached by the accused. 9. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has 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 court below 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. 10. 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 besent back forth with.