JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh “against” the judgment of acquittal rendered on 2.4.2008, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. “upon” criminal case No. 125-II/2000, case whereof embodies therein offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 27.12.1999 Rangeela Ram was going from Sarkaghat to Mandi along with Fateh Chand in a Jeep bearing number HP-33-3130 and when they reached near Galma at about 1:20 p.m. there coming one private bus bearing No. HP-29-2511 from the side of Ner Chowk being driven by the accused Jagdish Chand rashly and negligently. The complainant Rangeela Ram stopped his Jeep by the side of road, but the accused could not control the private bus and he dashed the bus against the said Jeep due to which the bus moved 15 to 16 feet above the ground and then it fallen on the road and injuries were caused to the passengers of the bus. In this accident, no injuries could not cause either to Rangeela Ram or Fateh Chand who was sitting with him in the said jeep. All the injured were taken to hospital and a case for rash and negligent driving was registered against the accused/appellant Jagdish Chand. The police has visited the spot and prepared a site plan and took into possession both the vehicles involved in the accident and got them mechanically examined. The statement of all the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and after the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned under Section 279, 337, 338 of the IPC for rash and negligent driving and was further challaned under Section 181 of M.V. Act as he was driving the bus without having any valid driving license. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, 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 338 of the IPC and under Section 181 of M.V. Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. 4. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court, for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and under Section 181 of M.V. Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 17 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 acquittal upon the accused/respondent herein. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded upon the accused/respondent. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing 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/respondent 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 assistant of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testifications of PW-1 and PW-2, PWs whereof, at the relevant time, “occupied” jeep bearing No. HP-33-3130 respectively as its driver and as a passenger on board thereon. Both in their respective testifications borne in their respective examinations-in-chief “with” absolute intra se concurrence, hence “rendered” versions qua the occurrence. 9. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testifications of PW-1 and PW-2, PWs whereof, at the relevant time, “occupied” jeep bearing No. HP-33-3130 respectively as its driver and as a passenger on board thereon. Both in their respective testifications borne in their respective examinations-in-chief “with” absolute intra se concurrence, hence “rendered” versions qua the occurrence. The important fact, which stands pronounced in their relevant examinations-in-chief “is” of the respondent/accused driving his vehicle at an excessive brazen pace, whereupon it swerved onto the extreme side of the road, whereat it turned turtle, in sequel whereto some passengers occupying the bus sustained injuries on their respective persons, injuries stood personified in their respective MLCs prepared in respect thereto, by the Doctor concerned, MLCs whereof stand comprised in Exts. PW12/A, PW12/B, PW12/C, PW12/D, PW12/E, PW12/F, PW12/G, PW12/H, PW12/J, PW12/K and PW12/L. Also the important fact, concurrently occurring in the respective examinations-in-chief of PW 1 and of PW-2 “is of” in sequel to the relevant collision, the bumper of the jeep suffering damage. However, the prosecution omitted to adduce in evidence “the apposite report”, prepared by the mechanical expert concerned, with portrayals therein “of jeep” bearing No. HP-33-3130 suffering any damage, absence of adduction into evidence “of the” apposite report of the mechanical expert, belies the version respectively propagated by PW-1 and PW-2 “in” their respective examinations-in-chief, that the respondent/accused “in driving” the offending vehicle at a brazen and at an excessive pace, also hence “in” a negligent manner, thereupon the relevant intrase collision interse both vehicles, hence standing begotten. The further effect of the aforesaid concurrent testifications, rendered by PW-1 and PW-2 with respect to the relevant collision occurring inter-se both the vehicles “hence” standing belied “is also of” the factum of the vehicle driven by PW-1, purportedly occupying the appropriate portion of the road, also its being driven at a slow pace by the aforesaid standing also concomitantly belied ”whereas” an inference being fostered “of” rather respondent/accused in purportedly driving the relevant offending bus at a brazen speed “ his” hence obviously not breaching the standards of due care and caution nor in his after purportedly striking “it” with the vehicle driven by PW-1, his swerving the offending vehicles onto the extreme side of the road “whereat it” turned turtle, in sequel whereof, occupants thereof suffered injuries on their respective persons,hence holding any trait or element of penally culpable negligence. Consequently, when the aforesaid inference “is coagulated” with PW-2 as occupant in the jeep driven by PW-1, echoing in his cross-examination that only for exculpating the guilt of the respondent No. 1 in the relevant ill-fated mishap, “a false case” standing foisted upon the accused/respondent “does” befittingly in its entirety “erode the efficacy” of the testifications of PW1 and PW-2, occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief. 10. Though, certain ocular witnesses to the occurrence stood associated by the investigating officer concerned in the relevant investigations carried by him. Also they stood cited as prosecution witnesses, however amongst the purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence excepting PW-4 “all” reneged from their respectively recorded previous statements in writing. Even during the course of the learned APP concerned subjecting “to” cross-examination the prosecution witnesses, who reneged from their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, in sequel to the APP concerned, receiving consent for the aforesaid purpose from the learned trial Court, thereat “too” the learned APP concerned was unable to make elicitations from them, for rearing any inference qua hence foisting of sanctity vis-a-vis their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, being imperative. The effect of the APP concerned “not” during the course of his holding to cross-examination the purported ocular witnesses to the ill-fated mishap , hence eliciting any relevant echoings from them, for hence theirs purveying any succor or corroboration to the testifications qua the occurrence rendered by PWs 1 and 2 “when” stands construed “in conjunction” with PW-2 in his cross-examination acquiescing to the suggestion put thereat to him by the learned defence counsel “that” only for exculpating the guilt of PW-1 in the relevant mishap, a false case stood hence foisted upon the accused/respondent, thereupon an inference standing marshalled that theirs association by the investigating officer concerned, as purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence, standing spurred by sheer concoction and invention besides also engenders a concomitant deduction that their associations “being” a stratagem employed by the investigating officer concerned “to foist”, a false case upon the accused/respondent. 11. 11. Be that as it may PW-4 has supported the prosecution case, however, her testification occurring in her examination-in-chief wherein she qua the occurrence ascribes an inculpatory role qua the accused/respondent “arising” from his driving the bus at an excessive brazen pace “would not” perse beget a conclusion that the swerving of bus onto the extreme left side of the road, whereat it turned turtle, in sequel whereof, occupants thereof sustained injuries on their respective persons, hence ipso facto standing sparked by the purported rashness besides negligent manner of driving of the bus by the respondent/accused. “Unless” evidence comprised in a validly prepared besides proven site plan, with reflections therein that the bus driven by the accused/respondent was visibly at the relevant time holding occupation of the appropriate side of the road, stood hence adduced. Though, ASI Rangeela Ram prepared Ext. PW17/A, wherein revelations occur with respect to “subsequent to the relevant collision” occurring at point “A”, the bus driven by the respondent/accused “thereafter” swerving onto the extreme side of the road, whereat it turned turtle, yet all the aforesaid enunciations occurring therein stood enjoined to be proven by its author. However, the author of Ext.PW17/A did not step into the witness box, given his no longer surviving “at the stage” when his evidence was to be recorded by the learned trial Court. Consequently the prosecution was hence, disabled to prove all the recitals borne in the site plan. Also for the inability of the author of Ext. PW17/A to step into witness box, the defence counsel also stood precluded to hold him to cross-examinations, with respect to the depictions occurring in the site plan being free from any taint of concoctions and inventions, besides with respect to also the revelations borne in site plan being “not” a sequel to the positions of the relevant vehicles being disturbed in any manner. Since the author of site plan remained unexamined, consequently the recitals borne therein remained unproven, nor also with the defence counsel obviously not holding him to cross-examinations with respect to the tenacity of the aforesaid recitals suffering any prevarication, thereupon it stands concluded that the offending vehicle may have occupied the appropriate portion of the road, whereas it appears that given the testifications occurring in the cross-examination of PW-2 wherein he echoes that for exculpating the guilt of PW-1, “a false case” stood foisted upon the accused/respondent, that rather PW-1 was occupying the inappropriate portion “of the road” thereupon it appears that the espousal of the defence that for averting occurrence of an intrase collision interse both the vehicles, the respondent/accused swerved the bus on to the extreme portion of the road, hence standing proven. In aftermath, the charge stands not proven to the hilt. 12. 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 therefrom 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. 13. 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 forthwith. The fine amount, if any, be released.