JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal stands directed, against, the verdict rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arki, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. in criminal case No.3/2 of 2005, whereunder, he returned findings of acquittal, upon, the accused in respect of charges framed, under, Section 279, and, under Section 304-A, of, the Indian Penal Code, and, under, Section 181 and besides, under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2004, accused person was driving a truck bearing No.HP-64-0939 on a public way from Bilaspur to Shimla. The accused person was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and when the accused, while driving the offending truck, reached near Bhararighat at about 3 p.m., he hit his truck with motorcycle, bearing No. HP-24A2239. The accused person was driving the truck on wrong side and in rash and negligent manner. Due to rash and negligent driving of the accused, injuries were caused to one Abhishek and one Rashinder, who thereafter succumbed to their injuries and died. The accused person was driving the truck without holding any valid driving license and log book. Immediately after the occurrence, a telephonic information received at Police Station Darlaghat, whereon the Police party went to the spot. Police recorded the statement of complainant Shri Rohit, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which FIR No.109 of 2004 was registered against the accused person, for his committing the offence under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 181 and 177 of M.V. Act. Investigating Officer prepared the spot map. Truck No. HP-64-0939 was taken into possession by the police, vide recovery memo. During the course of investigation, police took into possession the offending truck, vide recovery memo. The motorcycle was also taken into possession, vide separate recovery memo. The police also procured MLCs of Abhishek and Rashinder, the victims. The police also procured the photographs of the spot. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. 3. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared, and, filed in the Court concerned. 4. The police also procured the photographs of the spot. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. 3. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared, and, filed in the Court concerned. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court, for his committing offence(s) punishable under Section 279, and under Section 304-A, of, the Indian Penal Code, and, under Section 181 of the M.V. Act. In proof of the charge, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was, recorded by the trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of acquittal upon the accused/appellant herein. 6. The State of H.P., is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court. 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, 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, being reversed by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, 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 genesis of the prosecution case, is embodied in the accused/respondent, while driving the offending truck, bearing No. HP-64-0939, allegedly, in a rash and negligent manner, his hence striking the motorcycle, whereon deceased one Abhishek, and another deceased, one Rashinder, were, both astride. (i) And, the apt post-mortem reports, prepared, in respect of the aforesaid deceased, and, respectively, borne in Ext. (i) And, the apt post-mortem reports, prepared, in respect of the aforesaid deceased, and, respectively, borne in Ext. PW10/B, and, in Ext. PW10/D, by PW-9, latter whereof hence stepped into the witness box, for, proving all the apt enunciation(s) borne thereon, (ii) and rendered a testification, with apt voicing(s) therein, qua the ante mortem injuries, occurring, on the persons'' of the deceased(s), being a sequel, of, a road side accident. In aftermath, the demise of the deceased(s), is ascribable, vis--vis, a road mishap. 10. The prosecution for proving the genesis, of the occurrence, had, laid dependence, upon, the testification(s), rendered by PW-1, and, by PW-3, both eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1, in his testification, borne in his examination-in-chief, has rendered echoing(s), bearing the completest concurrence, with his previously recorded statement in writing, and, has unequivocally made a disclosure therein, qua the accused/respondent, while driving truck No. HP-64-0939, hence, visibly on the inappropriate side of the road, his rather striking, the, motor cycle, whereon, both, the aforesaid deceased, were, astride. The afore-rendered testification, of, PW-1, as comprised in his examination-in-chief, is bereft of any gross embellishment(s), and, improvement(s), vis--vis, his previously recorded statement in writing, nor he, in his cross-examination, contradicts the version, qua the occurrence, as unraveled by him, in his examination-in-chief. Consequently, the utmost reliance, is, to be placed thereon. However, the other eye witness, i.e. PW-3, to the occurrence, and, who was also astride, on, the motorcycle, along with, PW-1, though turned hostile, (i) whereafter, he, upon the acceded request made by the learned public prosecutor concerned, for his holding him, to crossexamination, hence stood subjected, to, a rigorous cross-examination, by the learned public prosecutor concerned, and, during course thereof, in the opening part, of, his cross-examination, as conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, he rather, acquiesced, to the suggestion(s), qua the relevant collision, which occurred at the site of occurrence, being hence sequelled, by, the respondent/accused, rather driving the offending truck, in, a rash and negligent manner. However, the learned counsel for the accused/respondent has emphasized, upon, other acquiescing(s), emanating from PW-3, during, the course of his being subjected to cross-examination, rather by the learned defence counsel, wherein, he testified qua his arriving, at, the site of occurrence, subsequent, to the collision taking place thereat. However, the learned counsel for the accused/respondent has emphasized, upon, other acquiescing(s), emanating from PW-3, during, the course of his being subjected to cross-examination, rather by the learned defence counsel, wherein, he testified qua his arriving, at, the site of occurrence, subsequent, to the collision taking place thereat. However, no capital, as intended to be drawn, can be derived therefrom, given (i) the learned defence counsel, not, meteing apposite suggestion(s) to him, qua PW-1 not being astride, along with him, upon the motorcycle, and, (ii) the effect of the learned defence counsel, hence omitting to put the aforesaid suggestion(s) vis--vis PW-3, and, obviously, when hence the latter omitted to make any denial, in respect thereof, rather contrarily begets an inference qua PW-1, and, PW-3, being conjointly astride, upon, the motor cycle, (iii) further more, when PW-1 has rendered an un-eroded ocular version qua the occurrence, thereupon, it appears that the aforesaid stray, acquiescing(s), hence, emanating from PW-3, during, the course of his being held to crossexamination, by the learned defence counsel, hence not shattering, the, un-eroded ocular testification, rendered qua the occurrence by PW-1, conspicuously when alongwith the latter, rather PW3 was also astride, on, the apt motorcycle. 11. Also, even if assumingly, any vigor is to be imputed, to, the aforesaid acquiescing(s), rendered, by PW-3, during, the course of his being held to cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, yet, vigor, thereof if any, evaporates, qua hence suggestion(s) being purveyed to PW-3, by the learned defence counsel, while holding him to crossexamination, (i) suggestion(s) whereof, appertain qua the distance, interse, the motor cycle, whereon the deceaseds'' were astride, and, the motorcycle, whereon PW-1, and, PW-3 were astride, or qua the aforesaid distance pointedly qua the motor cycle, whereon the aforesaid deceased were astride, and, the motor cycle, whereon PW-1 and PW-3 were conjointly astride, rather being immense, (ii) and, thereupon hence PW-3 being precluded to sight relevant occurrence, (iii) yet, the aforesaid suggestion(s) stood denied, by PW-3. The effect, of, denials meted by PW-3, vis--vis, the afore meted suggestions, to him, hence begets an inference, qua the distance, interse the vehicle, whereon, both the deceaseds'' were astride, and, the motorcycle, whereon both PW-1 and PW-3 were hence astride, rather not being immense (iv) nor hence, PW-3 or PW-1, being precluded to sight, the, relevant occurrence, nor hence both can be construed, to not hold the apt capacity, to, purvey an ocular version qua the occurrence. 12. Furthermore, there is a vivid display in the site plan, borne in Ext. PW7/C, that, the offending truck, was being driven, on the inappropriate side of the road, (i) thereupon, the aforesaid display, borne thereon, rather metes corroboration, to the deposition(s), of, PW-1, (i) moreso when PW-7, who proved the site plan, did not, in his cross-examination, conducted by the learned defence counsel, make any bespeaking(s) therein, qua it being inefficaciously drawn nor he purveyed any bespeaking(s) therein, qua at the time contemporaneous, of, his drawing Ext. PW7/C, the, position of the vehicles, rather being disturbed. Consequently, the utmost probative sanctity, is, to be visited, upon, the site plan, borne in Ext. PW7/C. 13. The learned trial Magistrate, has, proceeded to record an order of acquittal, upon, the accused/respondent, merely on anvil of, it, being not cogently proven by the prosecution, qua, the respondent/accused hence driving the offending truck. However, in making the aforesaid conclusion, the trial Magistrate, has not meted any requisite credence vis--vis the deposition, rendered, by the owner of the truck, who, while stepping into witness box, as PW-10, has clearly testified, that, he had employed, the respondent/accused, as a driver, upon, the offending truck. Even if the learned counsel for the respondent/accused contends, qua, the latter denying in his statement, borne upon Section 313 Cr.P.C., qua his driving the offending truck, at the relevant time, rather being sufficient to validate the afore-referred reason as assigned by the learned trial Judge, yet, the tenacity thereof, is eroded by the trite factum of, his omitting to name the person, who, in contemporanity of the occurrence, was hence driving the offending truck. 14. 14. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned appellate Court suffers from a perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and nonappreciation of evidence on record. 15. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The accused/respondent be produced before this Court, for his being heard on quantum of sentence, on 30.8.2018.