JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against, the judgment rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan upon, criminal case No. 31/2 of 2002, under Sections 279, 337 and 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 28.9.2001, at about 4:45 p.m. near Guru Kirpa, Dhaba, Patte-Ka-Mor, Kumarhatti on National Highway-22, the accused was driving LP Truck bearing No. HP-14-2526 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. The accused by his rash and negligent driving stuck the vehicle against Tata-709 Truck No.HP-15-4627 being driven by the complainant Sh. Chanchal Singh coming from opposite side resulting in simple injuries to himself and Sh. Nand Lal and death of Sh. Ishwar Dutt. It is alleged that the accused was driving LP truck bearing No. HP-14-2565 rashly and negligently and the accident was out come of the same. The offending vehicle being driven by the accused was on its way from Solan towards Parwanoo, whereas the vehicle being drivenby the complainant was coming from the opposite site on its way from Parwanoo to Ani. The accused after hitting the vehicle against Tata-709 truck bearing No. HP-15-4627 lost control over the same and drove the vehicle on the wrong side of the road and struck the same against road side tree. At the time of the accident the accused was driving LP truck bearing No. HP-14-2526, whereas he was accompanying by Sh. Nand Lal and Sh. Ishwar Dutt. The other persons namely Sh. Charan Dass being the cleaner/conductor of Truck No. HP-15-4627 and Sh. Gopal Dass and complainant escaped unhurt. The information regarding the accident was conveyed at about 12:10 a.m. at P.P. Dagshai on which Rapat No. 22 dated 28.9.2001 was entered pursuant to which a police party headed by HC Dev Ram No. 78 along with C.Dinesh Kumar and C. Parwinder No. 375 rushed to the accident site. The Police officials on reaching the spot found the body of Sh. Ishwar Dutt lying on the road, whereas the accused and injured Nand Lal had been shifted to CHC Dharampur for medical assistance. The police officials later recorded statement of Chanchal Singh, being driver of Tata 709 Truck bearing No. HP-15-4627 under Section 154 Cr. The Police officials on reaching the spot found the body of Sh. Ishwar Dutt lying on the road, whereas the accused and injured Nand Lal had been shifted to CHC Dharampur for medical assistance. The police officials later recorded statement of Chanchal Singh, being driver of Tata 709 Truck bearing No. HP-15-4627 under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The medical examination of the injured and the post mortem of the deceased conducted at CHC Dharampur by Dr. A.K. Singh who after examining the injured issued MLC with the opinion that they have sustained injuries. The post mortem report of deceased Ishwar Dutt was also procured separately. Both the vehicles were taken into possession and subjected to chemical examination. The investigation officer visiting the spot prepared spot map and also recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. 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 offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC. The prosecution examined 8 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. 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. 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. In the collision, which occurred interse the offending vehicle, and, truck bearing No. HP-15- 4627, the complainant hence suffered injuries, on his person, and, one Ishwar Dutt, succumbed to the injuries, sustained by him, in the relevant incident. The Doctor, who examined the victim/complainant Chanchal Singh, hence prepared the apposite MLC, and, also during the course of recording of his testification, he proved Ext. PW4/B, and, also in course thereof, lent proof, vis-a-vis the post mortem report, prepared by him, in respect of deceased Ishwar Dutt, report whereof is borne in Ext. PW4/E. On strength of the aforesaid cogent proof, adduced by PW-4, and, also on strength of the testifications, of ocular witnesses, to the occurrence, who, respectively deposed as PW-1, and, as PW-8, hence the learned Additional Advocate General, submits, that the charge against the accused, being cogently proven, (a) conspicuously with the place of occurrence, depicted in site plan, evidently depicting the trite factum, of the offending vehicle, swerving from, the appropriate side of the road, onto the inappropriate side, of the road, therefrom it being also inferable, of, his being perse negligent, in, driving the offending vehicle. 10. 10. Be that as it may, the defence espoused, by the counsel for the accused, of, the offending vehicle, suffering a sudden breakdown vis-à-vis its brake pipe, (a), and, hence the accused loosing control over the offending vehicle, (b) thereupon the aforesaid mechanical breakdown, besetting the vehicle, at the relevant stage, being obviously perse not significatory, of the accused, not, adhering to the standards of due care and caution, while his driving the offending vehicle, (c) concomitantly, rather his being construable to be not negligent in driving it, hence, also acquires firm strength, and, corroboration, from, the cross-examination, of PW-5, who prepared the apposite mechanical report, (d) and who, during the course of recording, of his testification, tendered the same into evidence, whereat, it stood exhibited as Ext. PW5/A (e) and, also in his cross-examination, hence his making vived echoing(s) in consonance, with, the espousal reared by the learned defence counsel. In aftermath, the findings of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court, do not warrant any interference, moreso, when the aforesaid rendered testification by PW-5, does not, apparently make any bespeaking of the accused, in, driving the offending vehicle, his not adhering to the standards of due care and caution. 11. 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 mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 12. 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.