JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by the State of Rajasthan arises out of the judgment and order dated 5th August, 1988 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Uniyara (Tonk) whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent of the offence charged with. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 23.5.1982 at about 2.00 PM, the accused respondent while driving Truck No. RJA 3875 rashly and negligently caused the death of a boy, namely Hukam Chand aged 11 years. The accused respondent was caught at the spot by the persons present there and a report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Aligarh, on the same day at 4.00 PM by the father of deceased. Upon this report, a case was registered.and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, the police prepared site plan, seized the trucks, took photographs of the place of incident recorded the statements of witnesses and got conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased. After completing investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused respondent. 3. On the basis of evidence and material, the learned Magistrate framed charge under section 304-A IPC against the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The accused was then examined under section 313 Cr.RC. In his explanation, the accused stated that there was no negligence on his part, but the accident was caused on account of negligence of the deceased himself. 5. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove charge under section 304-A IPC against the accused respondent and accordingly, while extending benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused respondent of the offence charged with. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondent and gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 7. It is not in dispute that accused respondent was driving the truck on the relevant day. There is also no dispute that deceased met accidental death. The only question which has to be considered is whether the accused respondent by rash and negligent driving caused the death of deceased. 7. It is not in dispute that accused respondent was driving the truck on the relevant day. There is also no dispute that deceased met accidental death. The only question which has to be considered is whether the accused respondent by rash and negligent driving caused the death of deceased. The trial court, on consideration of evidence and material available before it, came to a finding that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused respondent. 8. I have also scanned the evidence. PW 1 Ram Narain, father of deceased reached the spot on hearing the noise. Having reached the place of incident, he saw his son floundering on the road, oozing blood. This witness came at the spot on hearing the noise and at the call of villagers. Thus, he was not a witness of the incident. PW 2 Badri has stated that he had seen deceased Hukam Chand lying on the road and the police personnels had called him. He stated that he had witnessed the accident while standing at a some distance. In cross examination, the witness stated that he came to know about the accident on hearing cries of the deceased and then he reached the spot. Had he witnessed the accident, he would have explained the manner in which the accident took place. This witness was enable to state whether accident was caused by the front wheel or the back wheel of the Truck. A bare reading of the statement, PW 2 Badri cannot be said to be a witness who had seen the incident. PW 3 Ram Karan is a witness of site plan and seizure memo. PW 4 Dr. V.D. Sharma had conducted post mortem on the dead body and prepared post mortem report Ex.R6. PW 5 Dr. S.S. Sarkar had examined the injuries of deceased. PW 6 Daulat Singh, at the relevant time was posted as MTO Police Lines. He had mechanically checked the truck at the site. PW 7 Prithvi Singh and PW 9 Amar Singh are formal witnesses. PW 8 Kalyan has deposed that a truck was coming rashly from the side of Aligarh and was going towards Sawaimadhopur. Deceased Hukam Chand came in contact with that truck and fell down. He saw that blood was oozing out from various parts of his body. PW 7 Prithvi Singh and PW 9 Amar Singh are formal witnesses. PW 8 Kalyan has deposed that a truck was coming rashly from the side of Aligarh and was going towards Sawaimadhopur. Deceased Hukam Chand came in contact with that truck and fell down. He saw that blood was oozing out from various parts of his body. He then stated that Badri Sarpanch, Ram Karan etc. of the village came there and they disclosed that Hukam Chand collided with the truck. Thus, it appears that this witness reached the place of incident after PW 2 Badri Sarpanch and PW 3 Ram Karan had reached there. As stated above, PW 2 Badri is not an eye witness of the incident, while PW 3 Ram Karan who is a witness of site plan and seizure memo has not stated to have seen the accident. Therefore, PW 8 Kalyan cannot be said to be an eye witness of the incident. In these circumstances all the three witnesses, namely PW 1 Ram Narain, PW 2 Badri and PW 3 Ramkaran cannot be said to be the eye witnesses. As per prosecution, one Gangadhar was present at the place of incident, but he has not been examined in evidence. It is evident that in any case all the above named three witnesses reached the spot after the accident had taken place. Only on the basis of statements of these witnesses that truck was coming rashly, it cannot be held that prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond doubt. It also need be mentioned that it has also come in evidence that the deceased was crossing the road. 9. The trial court has also considered the medical evidence and in my view, in right perspective. Neither MLR, Ex.R 3 nor post mortem report Ex.P6 discloses any head injury. However, PW 4 Dr. B.D. Sharma who conducted autopsy has opined that cause of death was sub dural brain haemorrhage. Admittedly, no injury was found on the head of deceased and, therefore, in the absence of any head injury it cannot possibly be believed that cause of death was brain haemorrhage. In my considered view the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court being based on sound reasonings do not call for any interference. 10. Admittedly, no injury was found on the head of deceased and, therefore, in the absence of any head injury it cannot possibly be believed that cause of death was brain haemorrhage. In my considered view the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court being based on sound reasonings do not call for any interference. 10. It also need be observed that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence it should always given proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. It is well settled that even if two views are possible, the appellate court could not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below. I am fortified in my view by the law propounded by the Apex Court in Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 10 SCC 136 . 11. In the result, the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan has no merit and it is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******