JUDGMENT : 1. The accused faced charges for commission of offences constituted under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC, and, under Section 181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Upon, the afore drawn charges, the learned trial Court through its verdict made on 11.08.2010, upon, Cr. Case No. 127/I-07 made an order of acquittal upon the accused. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh becomes aggrieved from the order of acquittal (supra) and, hence has reared the extant appeal before this Court. 3. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the present criminal appeal are that on 27.06.2007 at about 6 p.m. at place near Godni Sidh Mandir Chobu, while complainant Ganga Devi was going from her house to depot along with her son Sagar and when they reached near Godni Sidh Mandir, Chobu, in the meantime one vehicle came from the Chadhiar side from the back which was being driven in high speed and in a negligent manner, struck against son of the complainant, due to which he fell down and sustained injury. Further injured Sagar was taken to the hospital in the same vehicle which had struck him. The said vehicle was bearing registration No. DL3CAP1824 and driver revealed his name Yash Paul Singh son of Mahavir Singh. The accident allegedly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of accused Yash Paul. The intimation of the occurrence was given by Medical Officer, SDH Baijnath to the police. In pursuance to which, DDR Ex.PW11/A was recorded and H.C. Puni Chand along with other police officials went to the hospital where statement of complainant, borne inEx.PW1/A was recorded and on the basis of said statement formal FIR Ex.PW9/A was registered in the police station concerned. The investigation was intiated and during the course of investigation, medical examination of injured Sagar was got conducted and MLC along with case summary of injured were obtained. It was also revealed during the course of investigation that accused Yash Paul consumed alcohol when he caused accident, as such his medical examination was also conducted and MLC was obtained. Further, the investigating officer prepared the site plan and documents of the vehicle were also taken into possession. After completion of all codal formalities, challan was presented in the trial Court against the accused. 4. Further, the investigating officer prepared the site plan and documents of the vehicle were also taken into possession. After completion of all codal formalities, challan was presented in the trial Court against the accused. 4. The incriminatory occurrence took place at the site disclosed in the site plan embodied in Ex.PW10/F. Though, the victim sustained injuries on his person as become pronounced in Ex.PW7/A. Moreover, though the victim after his becoming declared a competent witness, rather in his examination-in-chief attributed commission of incriminatory offences to the accused. However, his testification cannot enable the prosecution to argue that therethroughs, the charge becomes unflinchingly proven against the accused. Conspicuously, when he has echoed in his examination-in-chief, that during the course of his trudging on the edge of the road along with his mother, yet he has further disclosing therein, that the offending vehicle purportedly driven by the accused rather striking him from behind. Therefore, upon, the afore made statement of the accused, it cannot be firmly concluded that either the accused was at the relevant time driving the offending vehicle, and/or that penally inculpable negligence can be ascribed to him. 5. Be that as it may, the mother of the victim, a purported ocular witness to the occurrence, stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She in her examination-in-chief, has completely supported the prosecution case, as becomes, embodied in the FIR, borne in Ex.PW9/A. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereafter, even her testification, does not garner, the requisite evidentiary vigour. The primary reason for discarding her testimony, is anchored, upon the factum of hers disclosing in her testification, that one Pinka alias Jatinder Kumar being also present at the site of occurrence. Thereupons, unless completest corroboration to the statement of PW-1, became meted by PW-3 Jatinder Kumar, thereupon, alone credence would be assignable to the testimony of PW-1. PW-3, Jatinder Kumar did not in his examination-in-chief support the prosecution case. Consequently, on the request of the learned APP he was declared hostile, and, thereafter he was subjected to cross-examination by the learned APP concerned. Even, in his cross-examination, he has not made echoings hence supportive of the charge. Therefore, since PW-1 strives to seek corroboration from the deposition of PW-3, whereas, the latter completely reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing, and, even in his cross-examination rather no bespeakings being made by him rather supportive of the charge. Even, in his cross-examination, he has not made echoings hence supportive of the charge. Therefore, since PW-1 strives to seek corroboration from the deposition of PW-3, whereas, the latter completely reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing, and, even in his cross-examination rather no bespeakings being made by him rather supportive of the charge. Consequently, no credence can be ascribed to the statement of PW-1, the purported ocular witness to the occurrence. 6. Be that as it may, PW-4, is, also claimed by the prosecution to be also an ocular witness to the occurrence. However, even his testimony as comprised in his examination-in-chief remains unsupportive of the charge, as, therein he has voiced that he had acquired hear say knowledge about the incident, rather subsequent to its occurrence, and, with his also disclosing in his examination-in-chief, that when he arrived at the relevant site, his noticing that the accused had lifted the child in his vehicle, and, taken him to hospital for treatment. Therefore, the afore made echoings in the examination-in-chief by PW-4, also a purported eye witness to the occurrence, rather cannot become construable to be lending or meteing any corroboration to the testification of PW-1. 7. Analysing from another angle, PW-1 though has stated that the occurrence took place at about 5 or 5.30 p.m., of, the relevant day, yet upon hers being cross-examined by the learned defence counsel , she has deposed that the offending vehicle reached at the spot at about 6.30 p.m. Therefore, it appears that the purported offending vehicle, was not at the relevant site of occurrence, at the time of the occurrence taking place, at the time mentioned in the FIR, and, also concomitantly the accused/respondent, who is contended by the prosecution to be its driver, cannot obviously be construed to be driving the purported vehicle at the relevant time. Consequential effect thereof, is that a false attribution of guilt qua the accused has been made by the prosecution. Therefore, no credence is to be assigned thereto. Even otherwise, the act of the accused in lifting the child onto his vehicle for his thereafter ensuring his receiving treatment at the hospital concerned, is obviously manifestative of an act consistent with his innocence, and, obviously is an act inconsistent with his guilt. 8. Therefore, no credence is to be assigned thereto. Even otherwise, the act of the accused in lifting the child onto his vehicle for his thereafter ensuring his receiving treatment at the hospital concerned, is obviously manifestative of an act consistent with his innocence, and, obviously is an act inconsistent with his guilt. 8. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial Court, hence, also does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant criminal appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.