ORAL JUDGMENT B.N. Deshmukh, J. - This appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1984. 2. The respondent - accused was convicted for offence under Section 279, 427 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and also for offence under Section 89 read with Section 112 and under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned trial Judge convicted the respondent-accused for various offences and awarded different sentences for the said offences. However, substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The conviction was challenged by the respondent in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal filed by the accused was allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge was set aside. Hence the present appeal is filed by the State challenging the order of acquittal. 4. It is alleged that the accused was driving truck No. MTT 7589 rashly and negligently and gave a dash to the Bullet Motorcycle No. MTZ 3387 on 26th December, 1980 at about 7.00 p.m. at Nagar Poona Road. Because of the dash given by the truck, Dilip Jagannath Kulthe and Abdul Hamid Abdul Gani, why were on the motor cycle received injuries and humanely died. The accused was, therefore, tried of several offences as mentioned above. Though the conviction was recorded against the accused by the learned trial Judge, the Lower Appellate Court had set aside his conviction and sentence awarded to him by his order dated 23rd October, 1985. 5. The material evidence which requires consideration is that of the eye witness, P.Ws. 2, Baba Baban Shinde, and P.Ws. 4, Bajirao Ganpat Shelke who was in the truck driven by the accused at the time of the incident. There is also a complaint filed by P.Ws. 1, Exh. 26 and P.Ws. 3, Pramod is Panch witness, for the relevant panchanama. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge On appreciation of evidence has held that the truck driven by the accused was moving on the correct side and the truck was also not moving in great speed. It is the motor cycle which was being on driven with high speed, came to the wrong side of after crossing the tanker which was passing before the truck. Sessions Judge On appreciation of evidence has held that the truck driven by the accused was moving on the correct side and the truck was also not moving in great speed. It is the motor cycle which was being on driven with high speed, came to the wrong side of after crossing the tanker which was passing before the truck. The, Lower Appellate Court, therefore, recorded a finding that the truck was passing by the correct side with a reasonable speed. It is the motor cycle which was driven in a high speed dashed the truck by going to the wrong side. Therefore no responsibility was fastened against the accused on the basis of rash and negligent driving. 6. I have gone through the entire evidence on record. I do hot find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. The findings are based on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 Pramod, and P.Ws. 4, Bajirao and the contents of the Panchanama. The said findings leave no scope to hold that the truck was really passing on the wrong side. It is the motor cycle which came after crossing the tanker which was passing ahead of the truck to the wrong side and dashed the truck. The impact indicates that the motor cycle must be in great speed and because of that speed on seeing the truck after the tanker probably the motor cyclist could not control himself and dashed against the truck. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, Baban, is of no assistance at all. No reliance can be placed on his evidence as he does not seem to be an eye witness of the incident. After the incident it he had really seen the in fact and as he claims to know both the deceased persons, it is impossible to think that he would not follow and see as to what has happened to the two persons who had fall down on the road after the incident. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, Baba Baban Shinde also does not inspire confidence. Apart from that none of P.Ws. 1. indicate in the real sense the speed of the truck. However, P.Ws. 2, Baban has stated that the Motor cycle was probably driven at a high speed of 60 k.m. per hour. 7. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, Baba Baban Shinde also does not inspire confidence. Apart from that none of P.Ws. 1. indicate in the real sense the speed of the truck. However, P.Ws. 2, Baban has stated that the Motor cycle was probably driven at a high speed of 60 k.m. per hour. 7. In view of this position, no interference is called for in the order of acquittal as the findings cannot be said to be perverse. No view other than the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions. Judge, is possible in this case on the basis of the evidence produced in the matter. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Appeal dismissed.