JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against, the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.1, Una, H.P., upon, Criminal Case No. 13-I-02/10-II-02, wherethrough, the respondent herein (for short ''accused''), stood acquitted, by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis, the charge framed against him. 2. The offending jeep bearing registration No. HP20- A-2468, was driven at the relevant time, hence, by the accused, one Kabul Singh. In sequel to the purported rash and negligent hence driving of the afore jeep, by the accused, it collided against another jeep bearing registration No. HP23- 1763, rather driven by one Charanji Lal, and, in sequel thereto, the, driver of the afore jeep, sustained fatal injuries, on his person. Moreover, the accused had also sustained injuries on his person. 3. The complainant one Kuldeep Kumar (PW-3) made a testification, vis-a-vis, the offending jeep, being driven by the accused, on, the middle of the road, however, he feigned ignorance, vis-a-vis, the offending jeep, upon, arriving near the jeep driven by the deceased Charngi Lal, it, developing a mechanical snag, (i) in as much, as, the front right side tyre thereof getting burst, and, also the main leaf spring of the right side of the jeep becoming broken, and, in sequel whereto the offending jeep became mismaneuvered towards the right side. 4. Jasbir Singh (PW-4), has also supported the testification, as, made, vis-a-vis, the occurrence, hence, by PW- 3 one Kuldeep Kumar. However, as apparent, on a reading, of testification(s) of the afore witnesses, though they ascribe negligence to the accused, ascription, of, negligence, whereof is, embodied in the offending vehicle, becoming driven by the accused, on, the middle of the road, and, also it becoming driven, in, a rash and negligent manner. However, both feigned ignorance, vis-a-vis, at the relevant time, the afore mechanical snags abruptly developing in the vehicle, hence leading it to become mismaneuvered, on to, the inappropriate side of the road. 5. Be that as it may, the accused also espoused, a, defence, vis-a-vis, the afore mechanical snags, suddenly erupting in the offending vehicle, and, hence strived, to, disimpute, the, afore ascription of negligence qua him, by PW 3, and, by PW-4. 5. Be that as it may, the accused also espoused, a, defence, vis-a-vis, the afore mechanical snags, suddenly erupting in the offending vehicle, and, hence strived, to, disimpute, the, afore ascription of negligence qua him, by PW 3, and, by PW-4. Since, as aforestated both the afore witnesses feigned ignorance, vis-a-vis, the afore propagated defence, by the accused, (i) thereupon, for, construing whether the afore reared defence by the accused, assumes validity or not, it is imperative to bear in mind the report, of, the Mechanical expert, who, inspected the offending vehicle, and, prepared besides proved the mechanical reports, respectively comprised in Ex. PW-8/A and in Ex.PW8/B. A perusal thereof(s), though, discloses, vis-a-vis, the afore propagation, of, the defence becoming succored therefrom. However, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits, that, also with echoings becoming borne in the afore exhibits, vis-a-vis, the afore requisite mechanical snags, being a sequel of the ill-fated collision, hence occurring inter-se the jeep driven by the accused, and, the jeep driven by Charangi Lal, (ii) thereupon the afore defects, cannot be construed to be pre-mishap defects, rather are construable, to be erupting, in, the offending vehicle, in, sequel of the ill-fated collision, hence occurring, inter-se, the offending vehicle, and, the vehicle driven, by, the deceased Charangi Lal. 6. However, the afore construction, made upon, the afore echoing borne, in, Ex. PW-8/A, and, in PW-8/B, cannot be countenanced by this Court, (a) as, both the afore PWs feigned ignorance, vis-a-vis, eruption of the afore defects, in, the offending vehicle, (b) whereas they became enjoined, to, with clarity and precision, make bespeakings, in their respectively rendered testifications, qua, the impact of the collision begetting rather eruption of the afore defects, in, the offending vehicle, (c) or, whether the afore defects which erupted, in, the offending vehicle being pre-accident defects, and, hence leading, it to, become mismaneuvered, on to, the middle of the road. Also, when both the afore are ocular witnesses to the occurrence, and, when the mechanical expert, was not an ocular witness to the occurrence, rather his examining the vehicle, after, the occurrence of the afore mishap, (a) thereupon the non-occurrence of the afore echoings in the respectively rendered testifications, by, the afore witnesses, constrains this Court, to, conclude, vis-a-vis, reticence by both, vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum, rather bolstering an inference, vis-a-vis, the afore defects, rather happening, at the pre-collision, or, pre-accident phase, of, hence driving, of, the offending vehicle rather by the deceased. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.