JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Instant appeal is directed against the verdict of acquittal pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur, upon, Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2007, upon, the latter being preferred there before, hence, by the accused/respondent herein (for short "accused"), against, the order of conviction and consequent thereto sentence, as, recorded, by, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P, upon, Criminal Case No. 184-I of 2005/61-II of 2006, and, vis-a-vis, the accused, for, notice of accusation put under Section 279, and, under Section 337, of, the IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on March,2005, a telephonic message was received at 6.05 p.m. which was entered in Rapat Ex.PW-7/A to the effect that one Truck and car were involved in an accident near Mair. So, the Investigating Officer went to the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant Smt. Shail Sood under Section 154 of Cr.P.C Ex.PW-3/A. It was reported that she is a shopkeeper at 66, the Mall Shimla. On March,1,2005 she alongwith her husband and son Shail Sood were proceeding from Palampur to Shimla in their Santro Car bearing registration No. HP 62-0182. Salil was driving the car. When they reached at about 5.00 p.m. near Mair, Truck No. HP20A-2267 came from the opposite side hit the car which driving the truck rashly and negligently. They sustained injuries in the accident. 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 under Section 279 and 337, was, put to the accused, whereto which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the, prosecution examined 12 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. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the, prosecution examined 12 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. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction, against, the accused, for, offences punishable under Section 279, and, under Section 337, of, the I.P.C. However, in an appeal, preferred there from by the aggrieved, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter Court, while setting aside the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence, as, recorded, by, the learned trial Court, rather acquitted, the, accused, for, the charged offences. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has, concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned first appellate Court, standing, not based, on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs standing sequelled by gross misappreciation, 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. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has, with considerable force, and, vigour contended, qua, the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned first appellate Court, 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 learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended (i) that with the site plan borne, in, Ex. PW-8/B making clear depiction, vis-a-vis, the offending truck occupying the inappropriate side of the road, and, rather the santro car occupying, the, appropriate side of the road, (ii) hence it was in sagacious, for, the learned first appellate Court, to, omit, to, mete any credence thereto, (iii) and, thereafter he contends, that, discardings of, the, probative vigour, of, the afore potent documentary evidence, hence by the learned first appellate Court, rather hence constraining this Court, to, make an interference with the order of acquittal, as, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. 10. 10. This Court would concur with the afore submission addressed, before this Court, by the learned Deputy Advocate General, (i) upon, the ocular testification(s), vis-a-vis, the relevant occurrence, as, embodied in the depositions, of, PW-2 (Sushil Kumar), and of PW-3( Shail Sood), and, of PW-4 (Salil Sood), all making imminent bespeakings, hence bearing absolute concurrence, vis-a-vis, the depictions, as, cast in the site plan. However, upon, there existing any incongruity inter-se the testifications rendered, by the, afore ocular witnesses qua the occurrence, vis-a-vis, the, reflections cast, in, the site plan embodied in Ex. PW-8/B, (i) thereupon the elicitations, as, borne in the site plan, would not hold sway, and, this Court, also would not mete any credence thereto. Even though PWs 2,3 and 4, all ocular witnesses to the occurrence, in their respective examination(s)-in-chief, do depose, with the absolutest inter-se, and, intra-se corroboration, vis-a-vis, the offending truck, during, the process of its apposite overtaking(s), it, hence proceeding on to, the inappropriate side of the road, and, hence it colliding with the santro car, driven at the relevant site, by the son of PW-2. However the afore rendered testifications, hence with the absolutest inter-se, and, intra-se corroboration, are, perse not sufficient, to constrain this Court, to, mete the absolutest credence thereto, (i) as, their respective echoings, as, borne in their respective cross-examinations, are, also enjoined to be read, in, conjunction therewith. 11. Resultantly, and, importantly, with, the testification of PW-3, as, occurring in her cross-examination, rather unveiling qua the offending vehicle, after, completing the ascending drive, it, arriving, on to the plateau, and, also it, embodying echoings, qua it, being loaded, and, also its, though, making echoings, qua the afore truck attempting, to, overtake, the, purported stationary vehicle, (i) however when she has thereafter, deposed, qua hers rather at the relevant site of occurrence hence not sighting any stationary or moving vehicle, for apposite purported over takings whereof, the, driver of the offending vehicle hence maneuvered the truck, on to, the inappropriate site, of, the road. 12. 12. Resultantly, the afore deposition of PW-3, as, occurring in her cross-examination, has telling effects, qua it, being clearly connotative qua the afore loaded truck, after completing the ascent, in, a loaded condition, it arriving slowly, onto, the plateau, as, occurring at the site of occurrence, (i) and, hence obviously at the afore stage, it being not driven, at, abrazen or at a rash pace, (ii) besides when on its completing its ascent, it, arrived at the plateau, as, occurs at the site of occurrence, and, hence, rather was sightable, from, the opposite side, rather by the driver of the santro car, (iii) vehicle whereof, was already occupying, a, position located on the plateau, as, occurring at the site of occurrence, and, hence obviously, and, reiteratedly capacitated its driver to sight, the, arrival of the offending truck, at, the relevant site (iv) thereupon it was incumbent, upon, the driver of the santro car, to, for avoiding, the occurrence, of, a collision inter-se the latter, and, the offending truck, rather await the endeavor, if any, of the driver of the offending truck, to take a pass, from any stationary or moving vehicle hence purportedly occurring at the site of occurrence. However, the afore endeavor remained unrecoursed by the driver of the santro car, thereupon, and, along therewith hence coagulating, the, factum qua PW-3 in her cross-examination also volunteering to state, vis-a-vis, hers not, sighting any moving or stationary vehicle, at the site of occurrence, (i) thereupon, the further derivable inference therefrom is qua the testifications, of all, the afore ocular witnesses, qua, in the process, of, the driver of the truck endeavoring to take a pass, his hence colliding, it, with the santro car, hence being falsified, and, nor thereupon, his for the afore assigned reasons, being hence negligent, thereupon the reflections borne in the site plan, are, also concluded to be concomitantly falsified. 13. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. Impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. 13. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. Impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Instant appeal is directed against the verdict of acquittal pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur, upon, Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2007, upon, the latter being preferred there before, hence, by the accused/respondent herein (for short "accused"), against, the order of conviction and consequent thereto sentence, as, recorded, by, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P, upon, Criminal Case No. 184-I of 2005/61-II of 2006, and, vis-a-vis, the accused, for, notice of accusation put under Section 279, and, under Section 337, of, the IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on March,2005, a telephonic message was received at 6.05 p.m. which was entered in Rapat Ex.PW-7/A to the effect that one Truck and car were involved in an accident near Mair. So, the Investigating Officer went to the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant Smt. Shail Sood under Section 154 of Cr.P.C Ex.PW-3/A. It was reported that she is a shopkeeper at 66, the Mall Shimla. On March,1,2005 she alongwith her husband and son Shail Sood were proceeding from Palampur to Shimla in their Santro Car bearing registration No. HP 62-0182. Salil was driving the car. When they reached at about 5.00 p.m. near Mair, Truck No. HP20A-2267 came from the opposite side hit the car which driving the truck rashly and negligently. They sustained injuries in the accident. 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 under Section 279 and 337, was, put to the accused, whereto which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the, prosecution examined 12 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. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the, prosecution examined 12 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. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction, against, the accused, for, offences punishable under Section 279, and, under Section 337, of, the I.P.C. However, in an appeal, preferred there from by the aggrieved, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter Court, while setting aside the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence, as, recorded, by, the learned trial Court, rather acquitted, the, accused, for, the charged offences. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has, concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned first appellate Court, standing, not based, on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs standing sequelled by gross misappreciation, 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. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has, with considerable force, and, vigour contended, qua, the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned first appellate Court, 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 learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended (i) that with the site plan borne, in, Ex. PW-8/B making clear depiction, vis-a-vis, the offending truck occupying the inappropriate side of the road, and, rather the santro car occupying, the, appropriate side of the road, (ii) hence it was in sagacious, for, the learned first appellate Court, to, omit, to, mete any credence thereto, (iii) and, thereafter he contends, that, discardings of, the, probative vigour, of, the afore potent documentary evidence, hence by the learned first appellate Court, rather hence constraining this Court, to, make an interference with the order of acquittal, as, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. 10. 10. This Court would concur with the afore submission addressed, before this Court, by the learned Deputy Advocate General, (i) upon, the ocular testification(s), vis-a-vis, the relevant occurrence, as, embodied in the depositions, of, PW-2 (Sushil Kumar), and of PW-3( Shail Sood), and, of PW-4 (Salil Sood), all making imminent bespeakings, hence bearing absolute concurrence, vis-a-vis, the depictions, as, cast in the site plan. However, upon, there existing any incongruity inter-se the testifications rendered, by the, afore ocular witnesses qua the occurrence, vis-a-vis, the, reflections cast, in, the site plan embodied in Ex. PW-8/B, (i) thereupon the elicitations, as, borne in the site plan, would not hold sway, and, this Court, also would not mete any credence thereto. Even though PWs 2,3 and 4, all ocular witnesses to the occurrence, in their respective examination(s)-in-chief, do depose, with the absolutest inter-se, and, intra-se corroboration, vis-a-vis, the offending truck, during, the process of its apposite overtaking(s), it, hence proceeding on to, the inappropriate side of the road, and, hence it colliding with the santro car, driven at the relevant site, by the son of PW-2. However the afore rendered testifications, hence with the absolutest inter-se, and, intra-se corroboration, are, perse not sufficient, to constrain this Court, to, mete the absolutest credence thereto, (i) as, their respective echoings, as, borne in their respective cross-examinations, are, also enjoined to be read, in, conjunction therewith. 11. Resultantly, and, importantly, with, the testification of PW-3, as, occurring in her cross-examination, rather unveiling qua the offending vehicle, after, completing the ascending drive, it, arriving, on to the plateau, and, also it, embodying echoings, qua it, being loaded, and, also its, though, making echoings, qua the afore truck attempting, to, overtake, the, purported stationary vehicle, (i) however when she has thereafter, deposed, qua hers rather at the relevant site of occurrence hence not sighting any stationary or moving vehicle, for apposite purported over takings whereof, the, driver of the offending vehicle hence maneuvered the truck, on to, the inappropriate site, of, the road. 12. 12. Resultantly, the afore deposition of PW-3, as, occurring in her cross-examination, has telling effects, qua it, being clearly connotative qua the afore loaded truck, after completing the ascent, in, a loaded condition, it arriving slowly, onto, the plateau, as, occurring at the site of occurrence, (i) and, hence obviously at the afore stage, it being not driven, at, abrazen or at a rash pace, (ii) besides when on its completing its ascent, it, arrived at the plateau, as, occurs at the site of occurrence, and, hence, rather was sightable, from, the opposite side, rather by the driver of the santro car, (iii) vehicle whereof, was already occupying, a, position located on the plateau, as, occurring at the site of occurrence, and, hence obviously, and, reiteratedly capacitated its driver to sight, the, arrival of the offending truck, at, the relevant site (iv) thereupon it was incumbent, upon, the driver of the santro car, to, for avoiding, the occurrence, of, a collision inter-se the latter, and, the offending truck, rather await the endeavor, if any, of the driver of the offending truck, to take a pass, from any stationary or moving vehicle hence purportedly occurring at the site of occurrence. However, the afore endeavor remained unrecoursed by the driver of the santro car, thereupon, and, along therewith hence coagulating, the, factum qua PW-3 in her cross-examination also volunteering to state, vis-a-vis, hers not, sighting any moving or stationary vehicle, at the site of occurrence, (i) thereupon, the further derivable inference therefrom is qua the testifications, of all, the afore ocular witnesses, qua, in the process, of, the driver of the truck endeavoring to take a pass, his hence colliding, it, with the santro car, hence being falsified, and, nor thereupon, his for the afore assigned reasons, being hence negligent, thereupon the reflections borne in the site plan, are, also concluded to be concomitantly falsified. 13. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. Impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.