JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal, stands directed, by the appellant, State of Himachal Pradesh, against, the verdict of acquittal, recorded, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.-III, Una, District Una, H.P., in, Criminal Case No. 221-II-06, and, vis-a-vis, the accused/respondent herein. 2. In sequel, to, the collision, which occurred inter-se, the, bus bearing registration No. HP-21-3399, hence driven at the relevant time, by, the accused/ respondent, and, a Car bearing registration No. CH-03- N-1373, hence driven at the relevant time, by, its driver, thereupon, the occupant(s) thereof, one Balwinder Singh, one Swaran Singh, one Ashok Kumar, and, one Jaspreet Singh, became encumbered with simple injuries, on their respective persons, whereas, simple, and, grievous injuries, were, encumbered, upon, cooccupants Satvir Singh, and, Sukhram, the latter whereof rather succumbed, to, the injuries, sustained, by him, in the afore collision. 3. The occupants of the Car, stepped into, the witness box, whereas, the occupants, of the bus, did not step into the witness box, for, theirs making testifications, vis-a-vis, the genesis of the occurrence, as, embodied in the FIR, lodged qua the occurrence. The site of the accident, is, Kainchi Morh, and, the Investigating Officer concerned, in, his testification hence echoed, qua, the site of occurrence, being, not a blind curve, rather it being visible, even from a distance of 15 to 20 feet, (i) besides the afore deposition, of, the Investigating Officer also gathers support, from, the, apt photographs embodied, in, Ext. PW-6/A, to, Ext. PW6/H. The sequel of the afore, is qua the drivers, of each, of the afore vehicles, becoming facilitated, to sight the vehicle(s) hence coming from opposite direction. Even though, the occupant(s), of, the car make consistent testifications, vis-a-vis, the accused/respondent, while driving the offending bus, his driving, it, rather rashly, and, negligently. However, the afore made deposition(s) would not per-se constrain, this Court to conclude, vis-a-vis, the respondent/accused also not driving the offending vehicle, with, the requisite enjoined care, and, caution, as, comprised in his driving, the, vehicle, on the appropriate side of the road, (i) and, unless there exists evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore, hence dehors his rashly driving, the, offending bus, rather would become effaced. For, determining the afore factum, it is important to bear in mind, the, testification, rendered, by Ashok Kumar, who stepped into the witness box, as, PW-1, and, who has testified, vis-a-vis, the offending bus, striking the car from the right side, whereas, in contradiction thereto, the driver of the afore car, makes a deposition, vis-a-vis, the offending bus, rather striking the car, from, the left side. The afore contradiction devolve(s) upon, the factum, vis-a-vis, the car or the bus hence at the relevant time occupying, the, appropriate or the inappropriate side, of, the road. However, even if, the afore apparent contradictions, emerge inter-se the testifications, as become rendered, qua therewith, by PW-1, and, the driver of the car, yet, it is difficult to gauge therefrom, the, afore factum probandum. Even though, if from the afore inter-se contradictions, it is not possible to derive any clinching conclusion, vis-a-vis, the offending bus, at the relevant time, occurring, on, the inappropriate side of the road, and, whereupon, the respondent /accused, in, his allegedly rashly driving, the, offending vehicle, would, not beget, the, further inevitable conclusion, vis-a-vis, his abandoning, the, enjoined care, or, caution, in, driving it. However, for deriving the afore clinching conclusion, the trite factum, vis-a-vis, PW-1, hence making, a, deposition, vis-a-vis, upon his arrival, at, the site of occurrence, rather the apt mishap site, becoming disturbed, whereas, only upon its remaining undisturbed, would enable, the, deriving, of, an apt conclusion, vis-a-vis, the car, or the offending bus hence occupying, the, in, appropriate side, of, the road, (ii) besides when there along with, with, PW-12 making a deposition, vis-a-vis, the bumper of the bus, also becoming encumbered, with, damage hence in the collision, occurring inter-se the bus, and, the vehicle, occupied by the victim, (iii) thereupon it appears that the deposition of the victims'' witnesses, though, make consistent articulations, vis-a-vis, the respondent/ accused, negligently driving, the, offending bus, yet there testitications, rather becoming falsified. (iv) Corollary whereof, is, conspicuously, when, for, the aforestated reasons, rather the prosecution failing to adduce, any, cogent evidence, rather, making trite display(s), vis-a-vis, the offending bus occurring, on the, inappropriate side of the road, (v) thereupon the apt garnerable conclusion, is, vis-a-vis, hence benefit of doubt being amenable, for becoming accorded, vis-a-vis, the respondent/accused. 4. (iv) Corollary whereof, is, conspicuously, when, for, the aforestated reasons, rather the prosecution failing to adduce, any, cogent evidence, rather, making trite display(s), vis-a-vis, the offending bus occurring, on the, inappropriate side of the road, (v) thereupon the apt garnerable conclusion, is, vis-a-vis, hence benefit of doubt being amenable, for becoming accorded, vis-a-vis, the respondent/accused. 4. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Magistrate concerned, has, appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome, and, harmonious manner, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity, or, absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non-appreciation of germane evidence on record. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent, are, ordered to be forfeited, and, cancelled. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.