The central legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the accused's negligence or rash driving beyond reasonable doubt to establish the offences under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal is directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 18.06.2007 in Cr. Case No. 10-II-99 whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Panel Code.

2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 25.4.1999 at around 12.15 p.m. at Dhundla, accused was found driving a Meta-door vehicle bearing No. DL-08-2281 on a public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of other and while driving as such accused struck his vehicle against a cyclist i.e. complainant Husain Ali and thereby caused him and his brother Anayat Ali simple and grievous injuries. On a statement made by complainant Husain Ali under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to the police, FIR was registered against the accused in the police station concerned. Thereafter, the police completed the investigation formalities.

3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court.

4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case.

5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent herein.

6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs being sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction.

7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.

8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

9. The accused/respondent while driving Metadoor bearing No. DL-08-2281 begot a collision with an bicycle whereon the complainant Husain Ali and his brother Anayat Ali were atop. In sequel to the collision which occurred inter se the Metadoor and bicycle whereon at the relvant time both the complainant and his brother were atop, both the complainant and his brother sustained simple and grievous injuries. PW-9 has therein proven the factum of the brother of the complainant alone sustaining simple as well as grievous injuries. He has communicated therein of injuries noticed by him to be occurring on the person of the brother of the complainant standing begotten by a fall from bicycle.

10. The prosecution to sustain its case against the accused depended apart from the testimony of PW-9 upon apposite communications occurring in the testimonies of eight witnesses. Eye witnesses to the occurrence are PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. PW1 and PW-2 in their respective testimonies unequivocally voices the factum of the site whereat the collision occurred inter se the meta-door driv