Judgment By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 20.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, South Goa Margao, in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2009 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Canacona in Criminal Case No. 39/S/2007 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. 2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- The accused was the driver of the bus belonging to Kadamba Transport Corporation. On 9.3.2007 he was proceeding towards Karwar with the vehicle bearing no. GA-01-X-0268. At Karmal Ghat in Canacona, one maruti van bearing no. GA-01-E-1331 was coming in opposite direction. The bus dashed against the said maruti van resulting in death of one person and grievous injuries and simple injuries to two persons. It is the case of the prosecution that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused. Investigation was taken up by the Officer Incharge of Canacona Police Station and after completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused. 3. The substance of accusation was explained to the accused in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses namely:- (i) PW1 Latika Naik, the injured. (ii) PW2 Rajesh Nadkarni, the injured (iii) PW3 Krishna Pagi, the conductor of the bus (iv) PW4 Dr. Ryan Pereira, who had examined the injured. (v) PW5 Dr. Mandar Kantak, who had conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. (vi) PW6 Sandesh Dessai, who acted as a pancha witness. (vii) PW7 ASI, Ashok Shet, the Investigating Officer. 5. Prosecution also produced several documents in support of its case. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused examined himself in defence. His defence was that he was proceeding to Karwar in a slow speed and at the spot one maruti van was coming behind the tipper truck. The maruti van was overtaking a tipper truck and in the process came on the wrong side and dashed against the KTC bus. The accused examined himself in defence. His defence was that he was proceeding to Karwar in a slow speed and at the spot one maruti van was coming behind the tipper truck. The maruti van was overtaking a tipper truck and in the process came on the wrong side and dashed against the KTC bus. It was further his defence that on account of the impact bumper of the car got stuck up in the right front tyre of the bus as a result of which steering of the bus got locked and bus went on the wrong side of the road, although he applied brakes. Learned Magistrate upon appreciation of the evidence held that all the offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and consequently convicted him and imposed sentences. The accused preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal no. 75/2009 to the Court of Sessions Judge, Margao which was made over to Additional Sessions Judge-2, South Goa, Margao. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution held that the prosecution was not successful in proving that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the accused and consequently acquitted the accused for the offences for which he was convicted by the learned Magistrate. Order of acquittal of the accused was primarily passed on the following grounds:- i. Ocular evidence led by the prosecution does not support the prosecution case that the accused drove the bus in rash and negligent manner. ii. The evidence of PW2 Rajesh Nadkarni, did not prove that accused drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. iii. There was variation between the statements made by PW6 Sandesh Dessai and PW7 Ashok Shet. iv. The panchanama did not mention the spot of impact which was depicted in the sketch annexed to the panchanama. v. The evidence of PW3 Krishna Pagi, instead of supporting the prosecution case supports the defence version. 6. In view of the above learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Magistrate and acquitted the accused of the said offences. 7. Mr. v. The evidence of PW3 Krishna Pagi, instead of supporting the prosecution case supports the defence version. 6. In view of the above learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Magistrate and acquitted the accused of the said offences. 7. Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW6 Krishna Pagi, the panch witness clearly proves that impact of the two vehicles was on the right side as one proceeds from Margao to Karwar and, therefore, the finding recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge that rashness and negligence on the part of the accused was not proved, is totally unsustainable in law. Mr. Rivonkar further submitted that the evidence of PW7 Ashok Shet, investigating officer also clearly proves rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. Mr. Rivonkar, therefore, submitted that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be set aside and order passed by learned Magistrate, be restored. 8. Per contra, Mr. Diniz, learned Advocate appearing for respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment and order and further submitted that the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are borne out from the evidence on record and by no stretch of imagination the said findings can be said to be perverse warranting interference in appeal. Mr. Diniz further pointed out that the sketch which was annexed to the panchanama was not proved either through PW6 or through PW7 and the prosecution has not led cogent evidence to prove the point of impact and to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in appeal against acquittal. 10. Firstly, it is pertinent to note that the evidence of PW3 Krishna Pagi, supports the version of the accused. 10. Firstly, it is pertinent to note that the evidence of PW3 Krishna Pagi, supports the version of the accused. In his cross examination it was brought on record that the bus was on its correct side namely on the left side if one proceeds from Margao to Karwar and the maruti van had just overtaken the tipper. It is pertinent to note that the said witness was not cross examined by the prosecution after he supported the case of the accused in cross examination. According to learned Public Prosecutor, he had not attributed rashness and negligence to the accused in his statement to the police and therefore there was no cross examination by the prosecution. Moreover, neither the evidence of PW6 Sandesh Dessai, the pancha witness nor PW7 ASI Ashok Shet establishes the point of impact of the two vehicles which is very important in vehicular accident involving two vehicles. The sketch annexed to the panchanama has also not been proved. In addition as rightly held by the learned additional Sessions Judge, there is no reference to point of impact in the panchanama. 11. In view of the above position, the findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused cannot be said to be perverse. On the contrary the said findings are borne out from the evidence on record. 12. It is well settled that in an appeal against an acquittal, the appellate Court shall interfere only if the findings recorded are patently unsustainable in law and are perverse. If the view taken by lower Court/Magistrate is probable view, the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal is not entitled to reverse the order of acquittal. Applying the said tests, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondent/ accused of the offences for which he was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Canacona. 13. In the result therefore, I do not find merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. The bail bond executed by the respondent/accused stands discharged.