JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the acquittal of respondent under Section 279 IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act vide judgment dated 22.7.2008 passed in RBT No. 240-II of 2004, titled State of H.P. vs. Kamlesh Kumar in Case FIR No. 77 of 2002, dated 2.8.2002, registered in P.S. Sujanpur, District Hamirpur H.P. 2. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General for the State as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the respondent and have also gone through the record. 3. As per prosecution case, on the basis of challan presented in the Court, Notice of Accusation was put to accused under Sections 279 IPC and 181 of Motor Vehicle Act for causing damage to car No. HP-22-4679 driven by PW-1 A. Prabhakar Rao by driving bus No. HP-22-8789 on public highway on 2.8.2002 at 7 PM in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and causing injury to complainant in front of Sainik School Family Quarters Colony, Sunjanpur, District Hamirpur H.P. 4. The case of prosecution is that the respondent was driving his bus en-routed from Hamirpur to Sujanpur in rash and negligent manner on the day of accident and at that time, PW-1 A. Prabhakar Rao was coming out of his residential Colony for going to Sainik School, Sujanpur and respondent, without caring for entry of the said car on the main road had hit and damaged it. 5. After the accident, the police was informed telephonically by PW-1 A. Prabhakar Rao which led to recording of Report No. 28, dated 2.8.2002 (Ext.PW-10/A) in Daily Diary of Police Station Sujanpur, whereupon PW-5 ASI Parkash Chand along with HHC Randeep Singh had rushed to the spot and had recorded statement of complainant Ext.PW-1/A. The said statement was sent to Police Station, Sujanpur through HHC Randeep Singh (not examined) for registration of FIR, whereupon FIR Ext.PW-8/A was registered at 8.45 PM. During investigation, spot map Ext.PW-5/A was prepared, photographs of spot and vehicles were taken and the bus along with documents was taken in possession vide memos Ext.PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/B. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and car along with documents was also taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/B. Vehicles involved in the accident were mechanically examined by PW-4 Ranjeet Singh and reports Ext.PW-4/A and Ext.PW-4/B issued by him were also obtained by Investigating Officer. According to prosecution, accused could not produce the driving licence and therefore, case was also made out under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court by PW-8 SI/SHO Bakshi Ram. 6. As referred supra, on finding prima facie complicity of commission of offence, on the basis of challan presented by police, Notice of Accusation was put to accused/respondent and on pleading not guilty, he was subjected to trial, wherein the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case, whereas after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. respondent has not chosen to lead any evidence in defence. 7. The facts that accident has taken place, respondent was driving the bus involved in the accident, the said bus had hit and damaged the car being driven by PW-1 A. Prabhakar Rao coming out from the colony and lodging of FIR in consequence thereto are not in dispute. Now only point, on the basis of relevant evidence, to be determined in the present case is that whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt for driving the bus in rash and negligent manner, without driving licence, causing damage to the car of complainant PW-1 A. Prabhakar Rao. For this purpose, main relevant witnesses will be the spot witnesses namely PW-1 A. Prabhakar Rao and PW-2 Raman Dhiman. Besides them, deposition of Investigating Officer ASI Parkash Chand and documentary evidence like site map Ext.PW-5/A and photographs Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/D would also be relevant for the said purpose. Rest evidence, whether oral or documentary, is not required to be discussed in view of admitted facts, as noticed supra. 8. Besides them, deposition of Investigating Officer ASI Parkash Chand and documentary evidence like site map Ext.PW-5/A and photographs Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/D would also be relevant for the said purpose. Rest evidence, whether oral or documentary, is not required to be discussed in view of admitted facts, as noticed supra. 8. PW-1 A. Prabhakar Rao, PW-2 Raman Dhiman and PW-5 ASI Parkash Chand Investigating Officer in their examination-in-chief have stated that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of bus and PW-5 ASI Parkash Chand has also deposed that bus driver could not produce the valid driving licence to drive the bus. It has also come on record in evidence that bus driver had applied the brake and there were marks on the road indicating the said fact. In the site map Ext.PW-5/A also proved on record by PW-5, Investigating Officer, it is recorded that there were marks indicating application of brake on the road from a distance of 65 feet from spot of accident. The said marks are also visible in photographs Ext.PW-3/A, Ext.PW-3/C and Ext.PW-3/D. PW-1 A. Prabhakar Rao, in his examination-in-chief has stated that driver of bus had applied brake from a distance of 60-70 feet, but it did not work and there were skid marks establishing the said fact. PW-2 Raman Dhiman, in his cross examination, has admitted that bus driver had applied the brake and there were marks of application of brake on the spot. All this evidence on record indicates that bus driver, immediately after noticing the car, had applied the brake at a distance of 60 feet or more. 9. PW-1 in his statement Ext.PW-1/A has stated that bus driver could not control his bus, but in his deposition in Court, he is silent about it, whereas PW-2 has stated so in his deposition in the Court. It is evident from spot map Ext.PW-5/A as well as photographs Ext.PW-3/A, Ext.PW-3/B, Ext.PW-3/C and Ext.PW-3/D that bus is on its correct side i.e. left side of road. It is not a case where bus had become uncontrolled on account of high speed or otherwise, or had left its lane and hit the car after going out of the track. It is evident from spot map Ext.PW-5/A as well as photographs Ext.PW-3/A, Ext.PW-3/B, Ext.PW-3/C and Ext.PW-3/D that bus is on its correct side i.e. left side of road. It is not a case where bus had become uncontrolled on account of high speed or otherwise, or had left its lane and hit the car after going out of the track. It is apparent from photographs as well as spot map that bus remained on its own side and after noticing the car coming at rectangular direction in front of him, driver had applied the brakes immediately and it also emerges from the oral evidence on record as also evident from the spot map Ext.PW-5/A that residential colony was on right side of bus and car had entered on the road from that side for coming in the lane in which bus was coming as destination of bus and car was the same i.e. Sujanpur. Meaning thereby that car driver was trying to enter the lane ahead of the bus and in this attempt car driver made an entry on road at 90 degree and made T with vehicles by coming in front of bus in perpendicular direction. It is also evident from mechanical reports Ext.PW-4/A and Ext.PW-4/B and also from photographs referred supra that right side of bus had hit the left side of car. Car was coming from right side at a 90 degree angle. Bus driver had applied the brake at a distance of 60 feet after noticing the car. It indicates that there was a clear vision upto 60 feet and bus driver had noticed the car coming at an angle of 90 degree on the road and had applied the brakes and for that reason only after covering a distance of 60 feet, only the front portion of car was hit which proves that when there was distance of 60 feet between the vehicles involved in accident, the car had yet to come in the lane of the bus. In that situation, bus driver applied the brake but car driver continued to move ahead and as a result thereof, edge of front portion of car came in front of bus, meaning thereby that driver of bus noticed the car which was yet to come in the lane of bus and applied brakes but car driver did not do so, whereas, it was also incumbent upon the car driver to see the traffic on the road on both sides and thereafter try to enter the lane in which the bus was also coming on State Highway en-routed from Hamirpur to Sujanpur. It appears that car driver either did not notice the bus or did not care for the coming bus or presumed that bus will stop for giving the way to car and keep on moving the car to enter the lane in which the bus was also coming to go in the same direction and for that reason, only front edge of left side of car was hit by bus. It is not a case where the car was in front of bus and bus driver caused delay in applying the brakes and had collided with car. Therefore, plea taken by PW-1 and PW-2 that bus driver could not control the bus is not substantiated by the facts and evidence on record. Rather, it has also come on record that bus driver to the best of his ability had tried to avoid the accident by applying the brakes promptly. So far as the speed of bus is concerned, there is no positive evidence with respect to exact speed of bus. 10. It has come in evidence of mechanic, the bus driver might not have applied the emergency brake but might have applied the brake in a moderate manner to avoid any injury to passengers. It may be an error on his part in deciding the action to be taken after noticing the car coming in front of him at a 90 degree angle, but such error cannot be termed as gross negligence as required to fasten the criminal liability upon the driver for rash and negligent driving so as to convict him. 11. Therefore, there is no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of bus driver only. 12. 11. Therefore, there is no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of bus driver only. 12. So far as another point in issue with regard to possession of driving licence by bus driver/respondent at the time of driving the bus is concerned, there is no evidence against him except assertion by Investigating Officer ASI Parkash Chand in his examination in chief, wherein he has stated that at that time, driver of bus could not produce the driving licence. The said assertion has been disputed by respondent in cross examination by putting a suggestion though denied by the witnesses that during investigation, driver had shown his driving licence. Further, the trial Court has not considered this evidence to be reliable upon against the respondent as the said evidence and circumstance was never put to respondent at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is obligatory upon the Court to put all incriminatory evidence and circumstances to the accused, which have come against him and to be considered to convict him by the Court so as to enable accused to render an explanation, if any, to such evidence, and to rebut the same, if necessary, by leading evidence in defence. When evidence on this issue was not considered by the trial Court, as an incriminating evidence or circumstances, there was no occasion for him to respond thereto and to lead evidence to prove his version wherein he had disputed the fact by putting the question to Investigating Officer that he had produced the licence during investigation. 13. In view of above discussion, I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy evidence against the accused. Moreover the respondent/accused is having the advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court and presumption of innocence in his favour is fortified from his acquittal and degree of proof to rebut the said presumption is not found in evidence on record. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence placed on record completely and correctly without committing any irregularity, illegality or perversity. Therefore, acquittal of respondent has not resulted to travesty of justice and has not caused miscarriage of justice. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 14. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence placed on record completely and correctly without committing any irregularity, illegality or perversity. Therefore, acquittal of respondent has not resulted to travesty of justice and has not caused miscarriage of justice. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 14. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.