JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 21.01.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.9-S/10 of 2007, titled as Shri Anil Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted in a case FIR No.125/98 dated 01.08.1998, registered in Police Station, Parwanoo, under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, after reversing the judgment dated 09.05.2007/15.05.2007, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Case No.103/2 of 2000/98, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Anil Kumar, wherein respondent-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for ten days; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for ten days; and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Brief case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.1998, on Kalka-Shimla road, at a place Datyar, at about 12.10 AM, respondent-accused, driving his vehicle Zen bearing registration No.HR-04-6960 in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, had caused injuries to the occupants of the car leading to death of one of the occupants. Immediately, after the accident, some unknown person informed the police about the accident and at the instance of SHO of Police Station, Parwanoo, FIR No.125/98 dated 01.08.1998 (Ex.PA) was registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and, later on, after death of one of the occupants of the car, Section 304-A was also added. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in trial Court. 3. Finding complicity of the accused, in commission of offence, trial Court has put notice of accusation to the respondent-accused under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in trial Court. 3. Finding complicity of the accused, in commission of offence, trial Court has put notice of accusation to the respondent-accused under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case. Whereas, after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondent-accused has not chosen to lead any evidence in defence. 5. Inspector Ramesh Chauhan (PW.6) has been examined to prove the fact that after receiving information from some unknown person, he had visited the site of the accident and had found the damaged car at the spot and come to know that five occupants of the car had already been shifted to hospital for their treatment. Whereupon, he prepared Rukka (Ex.PW.6/A) and sent the same to the Police Station, leading to registration of FIR (Ex.PA) by ASI Arjun Singh (not examined). 6. Hc Prem Lal (PW.7) had investigated the case and on the basis of statements of Rajesh Kumar (PW.1), Jaswinder Kumar (PW.2) and Ghan Shyam (PW.3) under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had presented the challan in theCourt. 7. Prosecution case is based on the evidence of the spot witnesses Rajesh Kumar (PW.1) and Jaswinder Kumar (PW.2), and Ghan Shyam (PW.3) has been examined in order to identify the occupants of the car and also to prove that he had seen that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. All these witnesses have turned hostile and subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor. In their cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited against respondent-accused, rather their deposition is leading to contrary conclusion. 8. Rajesh Kumar (PW.1) and Jaswinder Kumar (PW.2) in their examination-in-chief have admitted occurrence of accident, place of occurrence and the fact that they were occupying car involved in accident being driven by respondent-accused on the relevant date and time of the accident. But they have further stated that when they reached at a distance of 2 kms from Datyar, a vehicle with bright lights came from the front side causing loss of control of driver upon the vehicle being occupied by them and as a result thereof, vehicle struck with hill and fell down in the gorge. In the cross-examination, they have categorically denied that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent-accused. In the cross-examination, they have categorically denied that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent-accused. Though they have admitted that accident had occurred on account of loosing control by respondent-accused on the vehicle, but they have further clarified that control was lost on account of bright lights of the high speed vehicle coming from the opposite side, which led to bumping of car with hill and felling in the gorge. 9. It is further clarified by Rajesh Kumar (PW.1) and Jaswinder Kumar (PW.2), in their cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, that accident had taken place in the course of saving their vehicle from the truck and not on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent-accused. Similarly, Ghan Shyam PW.3), in his examination-in-chief, has a different story to tell. According to him, police officials who had brought four persons at his shop, were stating that those persons had beaten a person, who was a driver. This witness was also declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, wherein he has admitted that the occupants of the car had taken meal in his hotel, and thereafter, had gone towards Jabli, but he has denied that respondent-accused was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner, resulting into an accident. 10. Pat Ram (PW.4) is a witness to the seizure of the accidental vehicle by the police, and Dr. Anil Sharma (PW.5) has proved the injuries suffered by occupants of the car, which is not disputed by respondent-accused. It is the entire evidence on record. 11. Scrutiny of the evidence, on record, leads to conclusion that there is no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence against the respondent-accused, so as to prove that respondent-accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. In fact, there is no evidence to prove the fact that respondent-accused was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human life so as to convict him for the offence charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. On the contrary, plausible cause for occurrence of accident has come on record in evidence and for the said cause, respondent-accused is not responsible. 12. On the contrary, plausible cause for occurrence of accident has come on record in evidence and for the said cause, respondent-accused is not responsible. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity and infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, rather he has appreciated evidence on record completely and correctly. There is nothing on record, so as to conclude that the acquittal of the respondent-accused has resulted into travesty of justice or miscarriage of justice or learned Sessions Judge has taken note of inadmissible evidence or has ignored admissible evidence. For evidence on record it cannot be said that findings returned by learned Sessions Judge are improbable. If two views are possible, definitely, view probable, benefiting the accused, is to be preferred. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment dated dated 21.01.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.9-S/10 of 2007, titled as Shri Anil Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.