in the same car which hit him. This witness has remained firm in the cross-examination. 14. RW-2 is respondent no. 2 as also the driver of the subject car. He says that the bike skied and fell in front of the car. He admits in cross-examination that when the motorcycle skied and8 reached in front of the car, the bus was 100 feet away and he stopped the car on the spot where the bike hit the car. 15. From the above evidence of the witnesses, it is apparent that (I) the car had suffered damages; (II) the car driver admits that the bus was 100 feet away when the motorcycle hit the car; (III) PW-6, an eyewitness, has narrated the accident and (IV) PW-2, the driver of the bus also speaks about hearing the sound of the accident and nearby people telling him that the car had hit the bike. 16. The courts below have recorded the finding of non- involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, PW-6 only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as