JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment recorded by the learned Appellate Court whereby it reversed the findings of conviction recorded upon the accused by the learned trial Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that PW-6 Balwant Singh was returning from Burawala on his cycle and on 5.5.2002 at about 9.30 a.m. motor cycle bearing No. HP-12A-2050 driven by Akhilesh Kumar came in a high speed from opposite side and struck against the cycle as a result of which cycle fell down and he sustained injuries. FIR was lodged by PW-1 Amar Chand upon which a case under Sections 279 and 337 IPC came to be registered at Police Station Barotiwala. Injured was removed to PSI dispensary Barotiwala. Motor cycle was got examined from PW-3 Pritam Singh and he found it in order. After recording the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 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. Notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 7 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 evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused whereas the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court returned findings of acquittal qua the accused. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation by it of the relevant material on record. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court returned findings of acquittal qua the accused. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation by it of the relevant material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being 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 Appellate Court standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record by the learned Appellate Court 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. The genesis of the ill-fated incident rest upon the testimonies of two purported independent witnesses to the incident, who testified before the learned trial Court as PW-1 and PW-2. However, both the purported independent witnesses to the ill-fated incident omitted to lend succor to the charge to which the accused respondent stood subjected to. With the purported independent witnesses to the ill-fated occurrence not lending succor to the charge to which the accused respondent stood subjected to thereupon the anvil of the prosecution case gets unhinged. 10. However, the solitary testimony of an injured victim does not ipso facto lose its vigour unless an incisive scanning of his testimony unveils qua his contradicting the apposite reflections occurring in the site plan comprised in Ext.PW-7/B. PW-6 sustained on his person simple injuries embodied in Ext.PW-5/A, in pursuance to the cycle whereupon he was atop standing struck by the motorcycle whereupon the accused was astride at the relevant time. PW-6 identified the accused respondent in Court thereupon the omission if any in the testification of PW-6 to recall the number of the motorcycle whereupon the accused respondent was astride, cannot, give any capitalization to the defence to thereupon canvass qua the prosecution failing to prove the factum of the motorcycle whereupon the accused respondent was astride striking the cycle whereupon the victim was atop hence se-quelling befalment of simple injuries on his person. The trite factum warranting adjudication by adduction of clinching evidence is qua dehors the speed at which the accused respondent was plying his motorcycle qua thereupon the apposite collision, which occurred at the relevant time inter se the respective vehicles, standing se-quelled by the relevant motorcycle or the cycle respectively occupying the inappropriate side of the road. PW-6 in his testimony has made an empathetic proclamation qua his plying his cycle on the appropriate side of the road also he pronounces therein qua the accused/respondent driving his motorcycle on the inappropriate side of the road. However, the truth of the aforesaid version stands contradicted by site plan comprised in Ext.PW-7/B, a perusal whereof discloses qua the cycle as stood plied at the relevant time by the injured its arriving from a Galli at the site of occurrence also it marks the factum of the cycle plied by the victim injured moving towards Baddi whereupon obviously a conclusion emanates qua the accused respondent plying his motorcycle on the appropriate side of the road also thereupon it is apt to conclude qua dehors the speed at which the accused respondent was driving the relevant motorcycle, his not being negligent in driving it rather contrarily the victim/injured conspicuously given his plying the cycle on the inappropriate side of the road, his hence not adhering to the standards of due care and caution also concomitantly his being negligent in navigating it whereupon the inculpation of the accused respondent is both specious besides not amenable to imputation of credence. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge 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 Addl. Sessions Judge 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. 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.