JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the impugned judgment, of, 17.1.2009, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur District Camp at Rampur Bushehar, H.P, upon, Police Challan No. 192-2 of 2006, where through, vis-a-vis, notice of accusation qua the accused put under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ?IPC?), an order of acquittal stood pronounced, upon, the respondent herein (for short ?accused?). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 6.5.2006, Vivek Mehta and Pankaj Gupta, were coming on scooter bearing registration No. HP-07-6117, from Chuhabag to Rampur. When the afore, were, reached near Petrol Pump, the scooter was hit by a jeep, jeep whereof was being driven by the accused at a high speed. As a result of the afore collision, the afore Vivek Mehta and Pankaj Gupta fell down from the scooter, and, sustained injuries on their person, and, they were rushed to the hospital. However, owing to rash and negligent driving of the accused, injured Vivek Mehta died. The matter was reported to the Police. 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 was put to the accused, by the learned trial Court, for his committing offences punishable, under Sections 279, 337, 338, and, under Section 304-A of IPC, and, under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereto, which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein, he pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. He chose not to lead defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal, upon, the accused. 6. 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 of evidence on record, rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the relevant material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal, warranting reversal by this Court, in the, exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal, warranting reversal by this Court, in the, exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel for the accused, has, with considerable force, and, vigour contended, qua, the findings of acquittal, recorded by the Court below, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, 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 accusation against the accused would, stand concluded, to be formidably proven, upon, credible ocular account, vis-a-vis, the relevant occurrence, being testified by the ocular witnesses' thereto. However, one amongst the two ocular witnesses, to the occurrence, in as much as, PW-1, one Surat Ram, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, has reneged from his previous statement recorded in writing, and, obviously hence did not lend any succor to the genesis, of, the prosecution case, (a) and, also when thereafter, with the permission of the Court, upon, his standing declared hostile, and, his being subjected to the ordeal, of, a rigorous cross-examination, by the learned APP, rather his omitting to make any bespeakings, hence, for succoring the charge, thereupon, there through the prosecution, has, failed to sustain, the, charge against the accused. 10. Even the other ocular witness to the occurrence, PW-6 one Pankaj Gupta, though, has rendered a deposition, vis-a-vis, a collision occurring, inter-se, the offending vehicle, and, the scooter, whereon one Vivek Mehta, and, he were both astride, (i) yet he has voiced qua the offending jeep being driven rashly, or, at a high speed. However, on anvil, of, the afore echoings made by him, no conclusion can be made, qua, the accused driving the offending vehicle, in, detraction, of, the cannons, of, due care and caution, (i) comprised in the offending vehicle being driven, on, the inappropriate side, of, the road. Significantly, hence the mere brazen or excessive speed, at which, the offending vehicle, was driven, hence by the accused, and, dehors, no credible echoings standing bespoken by PW-6, vis-a-vis, it being driven, on, the, inappropriate side of the road, reiteratedly, would not, constrain this Court, to, conclude qua the notice of accusation put against the accused, hence, standing cogently proved. 11. 11. Further more, the site map borne in Ex. PW-4/A, does not, reflect qua the offending vehicle rather occupying the inappropriate side of the road, (i) conspicuously with PW-4 SI Keshav Singh, in, his cross-examination, hence making echoings, qua, the nonexistence, of skid marks, at the relevant site of occurrence, (ii) consequently, for want of occurrence of skid marks, at, the relevant site of occurrence, no conclusion can be formed, qua, the offending hence occupying the inappropriate side of the road. 12. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate, that, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, hence, warranting any interference. Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.