JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The accused is charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 279, and, under Section 337 of the IPC. The learned trial Court made a verdict of conviction, upon, the accused, vis-a-vis, the afore drawn charges against him. The verdict made by the learned trial Court became assailed by the convict before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court through a verdict made on 11.04.2011, upon, Cr. Appeal No. 65 of 2010 affirmed both the verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentences imposed upon the convict hence by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the accused/convict rears a grievance, and, for his espousing his grievance, he rears, the extant criminal revision petition before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Attar Singh was going towards Zero Chowk, Sundernagar on 9.5.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. At that time a scooter came. Its headlights were not switched on. The scooter was being driven with higher speed and it hit the victim, as a result, the victim fell down onto the road. He suffered injuries on his right eye, face and on the other parts of his body. He was taken to Sub Division Hospital, Sundernagar. Intimation was given to the police. The police recorded the statement of the victim, and, an FIR was recorded in the police station concerned. 3. The victim, one Attar Singh stepped into the witness box as PW-1, and, during the course of his examination-in-chief, he proved his statement, recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., by the police, statement whereof, is borne in Ex. PW-1/A. During the course of his cross-examination, he acquiesced to a suggestion that in case, at the relevant time and at the relevant site, rather not prevailing darkness, thereupon, the accident would have not hence occurred. The testification of PW-1 is fully corroborated, and, supported by the testification of PW-3. If the testifications of both PW-1 and PW-3 are read in a wholesome manner, thereupon, this Court would draw a conclusion that they are neither improving nor embellishing upon their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, neither they render their testifications with any inter se contradictions nor their respective testifications are containing rather versions, contradicting the recitals occurring in Ex.PW1/A. Therefore, absolute evidentiary worth is to be accorded to their respective testifications. 4. 4. Moreover, since the mechanical expert, upon, his stepping into the witness box as PW-4, has proven Ex.PW4/A, and, with Ex.PW4/A declaring that at the relevant time, the offending scooter not carrying any latent and patent mechanical defect. Therefore, the consistent testifications made both by PW-1, and, by PW-3, vis-a-vis, the recitals carried in Ex.PW1/A, enjoin this Court to make an inference, that the incriminatory role attributed to the convict, becomes completely proven. 5. Furthermore, with the accused, during the course of his making his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., rendering an affirmative answer, to a question containing echoings, that at the relevant time he was driving the offending scooter. Consequently, the learned Additional Advocate General, argues that the afore also comprises an acquiescence of the accused about his incriminatory participation in the charged offences. 6. Be that as it may, even if the defence is able to elicit an acquiescing answer from PW-1, during the latter's cross-examination rather suggestive that if the all prevailing darkness rather not engulfing the relevant site, hence, the accident would not hence have occurred, and, also hence, the prosecution proving, that the convict/accused, did not, through his ensuring, his switching on the lights of his scooter, hence adhering to the standards of due care and caution, and,rather was negligent. Moreover, even if, there is inter se corroborations, inter se the testifications of PW-1 and PW-3. However, the cardinal reason for this Court to not place any implicit reliance thereon, is embodied in the factum, that the most material piece of evidence comprises in the site plan, becoming ensured to be made exhibition marks thereon, by the learned trial Court, during, the course of testifications being made in court, by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the afore does constitute a vital exculpatory flaw, as, thereupon, alone it could be readable in evidence, and, also could become concludable to be proven in accordance with law. The striking reason for forming, the afore inference is garnered from the factum, that want of exhibition mark being made thereon, by the learned trial Court, does negate, all the recitals borne therein. The further effect thereof is that, especially when PW-1, and, PW-3, did not, in their respective testifications, rather vividly disclose that the entire stretch of road was not at the relevant time, hence straight. The further effect thereof is that, especially when PW-1, and, PW-3, did not, in their respective testifications, rather vividly disclose that the entire stretch of road was not at the relevant time, hence straight. Therefore, this Court, for want, of, an exhibition mark being made on the site plan, and, for lack of afore articulations occurring in the testifications of PW-1, and, PW-3, becomes constrained to conclude, that the relevant stretch of road, was straight, and, was not holding any curves. As a corollary, since it has not been echoed in the testifications of PW-1, and, PW-3, that the accused departed, from the standards of due care and caution, even through, his not sounding the horn, nor also when there is no further evidence that the offending scooter, was being driven in a neutral mode. In aftermath, this Court concludes that since the victim was a pedestrian on a road, meant only for plyings, of, vehicles thereon, he could through the sound emanating from the engine of the offending scooter, become the recipient of a warning, that it was moving on the road, and, could have taken to adhere to the standards of due care and caution, while taking to trudge on the relevant road. In summa, it appears that the accused did not depart from the standards of due care and caution, rather the victim departed from the standards of due care and caution. 7. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that both the learned courts below have not appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned courts below, hence, also suffers from a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 8. Consequently, the extant criminal revision petition is allowed, and, the judgments impugned before this Court are quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 and under Section 337 of the IPC. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused be refunded to him, in accordance with law. Personal and surety bonds are discharged. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.