JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against, the judgment rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon, criminal case No. 72/2 of 2006, under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC, whereby he pronounced an order of acquittal, upon, the accused. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 12.7.2006, at about 4:45 p.m. at place Nihog, Solan Nahan road, the accused No. 1 Ram Narayan was driving the bus bearing No. HP-17A-4100 in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others, as a result of his rash and negligent driving of the said bus by accused No. 1, Ram Narayan acted as such, one passenger namely Dinesh Kumar fell down from the roof of the bus and sustained multiple injuries, who later on while on the way to Z.H. Nahan succumbed to the injuries. Accused No. 2 Bhagwan Singh was conducted in the aforesaid bus. The matter was reported to the police. On receipt of information regarding the accident, ASI Jagdish Chand went to Z.H. Nahan, where one Sat Pardeep got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A. The said statement was sent to P.S. Nahan on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW9/A was registered against both the accused persons. The post mortem of the deceased was got conducted by the IO and post mortem report is Ext. PW8/A. The IO took into possession a piece of broken glasses near window of the bus bearing No. HP-17A-4100, which was blood stained , Ext. P1, and was taken into possession after making sealed parcel vide memo Ext. PW3/A and also took in possession the pieces of glasses black in colour lying on the spot, in a sealed parcel Ext. P-2 vide memo Ext. PW3/B. The specimen seal impression "A" was taken separately on a piece of cloth by the IO which is Ext. PW9/D. The vehicle was mechanically got examined and mechanical report is Ext. PW10/A. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan Ext. PW9/B on the spot and also recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their versions and also recorded the statement of witness Rishi Thakur Ext. PW9/C. After the completion of the investigation, the IO handed over the case file to SHO Narbir Singh Rathour, who prepared the challan. 3. PW10/A. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan Ext. PW9/B on the spot and also recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their versions and also recorded the statement of witness Rishi Thakur Ext. PW9/C. After the completion of the investigation, the IO handed over the case file to SHO Narbir Singh Rathour, who prepared the challan. 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, Section 304-A of the IPC. The prosecution examined 11 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, no defence evidence was adduced by the accused. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of acquittal upon the accused persons. 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 for the respondents/accused has also 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. Deceased Dinesh Kumar, as unraveled by the apposite post-mortem report, borne in Ext. PW8/A, suffered his demise, owing to the injuries, entailed upon his person, in the incident concerned. 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. Deceased Dinesh Kumar, as unraveled by the apposite post-mortem report, borne in Ext. PW8/A, suffered his demise, owing to the injuries, entailed upon his person, in the incident concerned. The prosecution, had canvassed, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (a) that the aforesaid demise, was a sequel to the deceased being enabled by both the accused, to occupy the roof of the bus, whereas, it was their enjoined duty to preclude him, from occupying the roof of the bus. Omission(s), whereof, are, an evident display, of both the accused, hence not adhering to the standards of due care and caution, hence, theirs' being negligent. 10. The prosecution has depended upon the testification of purported eye witness(es), to, the occurrence. All the eye witness(es) to the occurrence, upon theirs' stepping into witness box, resiled from their previously recorded statement(s) in writing, (a) even upon theirs being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination, by the learned APP concerned, upon theirs being declared hostile, nothing emanated from each of them, for hence sustaining the charge. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General, has drawn the attention of this Court, to the deposition(s) , existing in the cross-examination of PW-5, (i) wherein, on his being purveyed by the learned defence counsel, after his, prior thereto, being subjected to cross-examination, by the learned APP, (ii) an affirmative suggestion of some passengers, occupying the roof, of the bus, rather, an affirmative answer thereto emanating, from PW-5, (iii) thereupon, hence it being inferable, of, the defence rather acquiescing vis--vis the incriminatory role of the accused. However, the effect of the aforesaid submission, is waned (iv) by the factum, of, rather a wholesome reading of the testification of PW-5, not unveiling, of, the deceased occupying the roof of the bus. For lack of occurrence, of, any firm echoing(s) , in the testification, of PW-5, qua the deceased occupying the roof of the bus, thereupon it cannot be concluded, that, amongst the persons, who were occupying the roof of the bus, of the deceased being one of them. The effect of the aforesaid nonexistence, of, any firm evidence, vis--vis the deceased occupying the roof, of the bus, constrains this Court to conclude, that, hence benefit of doubt thereof being accruable, vis--vis the accused. 12. The effect of the aforesaid nonexistence, of, any firm evidence, vis--vis the deceased occupying the roof, of the bus, constrains this Court to conclude, that, hence benefit of doubt thereof being accruable, vis--vis the accused. 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 any gross perversity or absurdity of any 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.