JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- The crux of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant State appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that Bishan Singh son of Bahadur Singh and complainant Madan Lal (PW5) (for brevity “the complainant”) were working in the Canteen of Agni Casting Factory, Mandi Gobindgarh. On 25.11.1996 at about 12 noon, they were going towards Mandi Gobindgarh on their respective cycles to fetch kerosene for the Canteen. As soon as, they crossed the Bus-stand of village Ajnali and came towards GT Road, in the meantime, a bus, bearing registration No.PB-11- F-9705 (for short “the offending bus”) came from the side of Sirhind and rammed into the cycle of Bishan Singh. He felled on the road and the tyre of the bus crossed over his thighs. After causing the accident, the bus was stopped after covering some distance. The complainant was stated to have removed Bishan Singh in an injured condition to Govt. Hospital, where he died on account of injuries. 2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending bus, in which, Bishan Singh succumbed to his injuries. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PA) of complainant, the present criminal case was registered against respondentaccused Devinder Singh son of Didar Singh (in short “the accused”), by virtue of FIR No.134 dated 25.11.1996 (Annexure PW6/A), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the accused to face the trial for the pointed offences. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of indicated offences. As he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court. 5. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of indicated offences. As he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court. 5. Sequelly, the prosecution, in order to prove the crime against the accused, examined PW1 Dr.Jaspal Singh Rakhi, who, on 26.11.1996, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Bishan Singh, vide post mortem report (Ex.PA/1) and found the following injuries on his person:- 1. Abrasion 10 C.M. on the left temporal region with defuse swelling. 2. Whole skin on the interior surface of both the thighs up to the middle is pelled of with muscles and vessel torn. 3. Large intestine coming out of the opening on the monos pupis with rupture of interior abdominal wall. 4. Testis and penis badly crushed and mutilated. 5. Lateral side of both the thighs have burn marks due to fraction and the skin is pelled of. 6. According to PW1, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage on account of ante mortem injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary set of circumstances. He handed over a copy of PMR to the police. The time between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. PW9 Dr.Baljeet Singh has sent the written intimation (Ex.PB) to the police on 25.11.1996. 7. Likewise, PW5 complainant Madan Lal son of Shiv Singh has, inter-alia, stated that on 25.11.1996 at about 12 noon, he and Bishan Singh were going towards Mandi Gobindgarh on their respective cycles for fetching kerosene for the canteen. Bishan Singh was going ahead and he was following him. When they reached near Bus-stand of village Ajnali, in the meantime, a bus, bearing registration No.PB-11-F-9705 came from the side of Sirhind, without blowing horn, in a rash and negligent manner. It rammed into the cycle of Bishan Singh. His cycle was crushed. The tyre of bus crossed over his thighs. Thereafter, the bus turned turtle in the gorge. The driver came out of it. The complainant identified the accused (in the Court), who was driving the bus. He did not know his name. Then, he removed Bishan Singh to the hospital, where he died. His cycle was crushed. The tyre of bus crossed over his thighs. Thereafter, the bus turned turtle in the gorge. The driver came out of it. The complainant identified the accused (in the Court), who was driving the bus. He did not know his name. Then, he removed Bishan Singh to the hospital, where he died. Subsequently, he came to the factory to inform about the death of Bishan Singh and again came in the hospital at 4 P.M., where the police recorded his statement (Ex.PA), which bears his signatures. 8. Similarly, PW4 Puran Singh has stated that he identified the dead body of Bishan Singh in the hospital. The inquest report (Ex.PW4/A) and post mortem report (Ex.PA/1) bear his signatures. PW2 Rajinder Parshad, Photographer snapped the photographs (Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/15) of place of accident. PW3 Dasminder Singh has mechanically examined the offending bus. PW6 ASI Karnail Singh has, on receipt of statement (Ex.PA) of complainant, registered the formal FIR (Ex.PW6/A). PW7 Gurdev Singh Inspector, PRTC has proved the photo copy of entry in register (Ex.PW7/A), RC (Ex.PW7/B) and its recovery memo (Ex.PW7/C). PW10 Raminder Kaur, Senior Assistant, DTO Office has proved on record the registration of offending bus in the name of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC). 9. The last to note is the testimony of PW8 HC Bimal Krishan, who has deposed that on 25.11.1996 on receipt of information, he along with ASI Harminder Singh and SPO Sukhwinder Singh reached General Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. ASI Harminder Singh has sent SPO Sukhwinder Singh to the police station for registration of the case. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. The police party reached, inspected the spot and has taken into possession the offending bus and cycle of the deceased, vide recovery memos (Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B), which were attested by him. ASI Harminder Singh arrested the accused. The prosecution did not examine the main Investigating Officer (ASI Harminder Singh) for the reasons best known to it. 10. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, he has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication. 11. 10. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, he has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication. 11. The accused, in order to prove his defence plea, has examined DW1 Dr.Atul K.Singla, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert and DW2 Kuldeep Singh, Patwari of village Ajnali. DW1 has opined, vide his report (Ex.D1) that the questioned signatures marked as Q1 and Q2 on the recovery memos (Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B) were not written by the same person, whose standard signature was marked as S1 and who had written the portion ‘HC’ near the signatures marked as A1 to A3. Likewise, DW2 has proved that the Agni Casting Factory falls on the right side, whereas village Ajnali is situated on the left side of the GT road, if one comes from the side of Sirhind for going to Mandi Gobindgarh. This is the total oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record by the parties. 12. Taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the parties, the trial Court acquitted the accused, by virtue of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 6.9.2000, which, in substance, is as under:- “After going through the submissions of the ld.counsel for the accused, the submissions of the ld.counsel for the accused carries weight had the bus being seen so rash and negligent as alleged by the prosecution it would have first hit the complainant who was 3 yards behind the deceased on the cycle and the deceased was also on the cycle would have then been hit thus, the negligence of the driver cannot be proved by the prosecution. In this case, if the version of the complainant is seen in the cross-examination he states that the police people did not take any signatures of him on any paper. Now, if the statement of the complainant Ex.PA is seen on record, it is signed by the complainant. How the signatures of the complainant appears on Ex.PA becomes doubtful. It seems that the prosecution has created this witness to implicate the accused falsely in the present case. Now, if the statement of the complainant Ex.PA is seen on record, it is signed by the complainant. How the signatures of the complainant appears on Ex.PA becomes doubtful. It seems that the prosecution has created this witness to implicate the accused falsely in the present case. The prosecution was to prove that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent and due to his rash and negligent driving the death of the deceased was caused but if the version of the complainant himself is seen he states that he has not signed any documents before the police but his signatures appears on Ex.PA, his presence at the spot becomes doubtful. In this case, the prosecution has examined HC Bimal Krishan as PW8. If the signatures of this witness on his statement recorded in this court on 7.12.98 and recovery memo (Ex.PW8/A) are seen, the signatures of this witness does not tally. If they are seen by the naked eye they are totally different. The accused has examined Dr.Atul Kumar Singla, handwriting expert as DW1 who has given his report that signatures of HC Bimal Krishan on his statement made in the court and his recovery memo do not tally. The report of the expert seems quite correct as his signatures on Ex.PW8/A and on his statement made in the court are quite difference but this witness has denied the same. As such, the presence of this witness at the spot becomes doubtful. Thus, it was upon the prosecution to prove that the accused was rashly and negligently driving the bus and caused the death of the deceased in the accident but the presence of the complainant at the spot becomes doubtful. Prosecution as such is unable to prove the charge against the accused and by giving benefit of doubt to the accused I acquit accused Devinder Singh from the charges framed against him.” 13. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Punjab has preferred the instant appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal in this context. 15. That is how I am seized of the matter. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal in this context. 15. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate Court in case of acquittal, was determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2817] : 2008(10) SCC 450 . Having considering the scope of sections 378, 386 Cr.PC and a line of various previous judgments on the point, it was ruled as under (Paras 74 & 75):- “74. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court’s decision. This is especially true when a witness’ credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong. 75. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii)The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; iv)The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi)The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 16. Above being the legal position and evidence on record, now the core controversy, which invites an immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the trial Court has committed such jurisdictional error to acquit the accused and there are substantial and compelling reasons to set aside the judgment of acquittal or not ? 17. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative, as the prosecution has miserably failed in this relevant connection and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein- below. 18. As is evident from the record that the accident in question was stated to have been taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver while driving the offending bus, in which, Bishan Singh succumbed to his injuries and complainant had witnessed the accident. The contention of learned counsel for accused that the presence of complainant at the spot was highly doubtful, has considerable force. It is not a matter of dispute that he is the maternal uncle of the deceased. The contention of learned counsel for accused that the presence of complainant at the spot was highly doubtful, has considerable force. It is not a matter of dispute that he is the maternal uncle of the deceased. While appearing as PW5 in the court, he had given his vague address of Bombay. According to the prosecution, he was following the deceased on his bicycle and was going towards the side of Mandi Gobindgarh. The offending bus came from behind from Sirhind side. DW2 Patwari testified that the Agni Casting Factory falls on the right side, whereas village Ajnali was situated on the left side of the GT road, if one comes from the side of Sirhind for going to Mandi Gobindgarh. It has come in the evidence that the complainant was following the deceased at a distance of only three yards. If the offending bus was so rash and negligent, then, at the first instance, it ought to have hit the cycle of the complainant before ramming into the cycle of the deceased. 19. This is not the end of the matter. PW5 took the deceased to the hospital in a serious condition. PW9 Dr.Baljeet Singh had informed and on receipt of information, ASI Harminder Singh, HC Bimal Krishan (PW8) and SPO Sukhwinder Singh reached the hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ex.PW4/A), which was signed/attested by Dabal Singh and Puran Singh (PW4) sons of Fateh Singh and not by the complainant. 20. Not only that, the dead body of deceased was claimed to have been brought to the hospital by Puran Singh and Dabal Singh (not by the complainant) as mentioned in the PMR (Ex.PA/1). In case, the complainant had brought Bishan Singh in a serious condition to the hospital, in that eventuality, the police ought to have recorded his statement during the course of preparing the inquest report and would have obtained his signatures on it and post mortem report as well. On the contrary, the dead body was identified by PW4 Puran Singh and Dabal Singh. It clearly indicates that neither the complainant had witnessed the accident nor brought the deceased to the hospital, as projected by the prosecution. He was subsequently introduced by the police, particularly when he has admitted that police did not obtain his signatures on any paper on that day. It clearly indicates that neither the complainant had witnessed the accident nor brought the deceased to the hospital, as projected by the prosecution. He was subsequently introduced by the police, particularly when he has admitted that police did not obtain his signatures on any paper on that day. In this manner, from where, his signatures had appeared on his alleged statement (Ex.PA), which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.PW6/A), remained an unfolded mystery. Thus, it stands proved on record that PW5 was not present at the spot and the investigation was tainted, perhaps that was indeed the reason that the prosecution has neither examined the main Investigating Officer ASI Harminder Singh as witness in the Court nor proved the rough site plan, for the reasons best known to it. 21. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the presence of complainant, who is real maternal uncle of the deceased, is highly doubtful at the place of accident; non-examination of the main I.O.; tainted investigation; totality of the facts and circumstances, emerging out of the evidence on record, as discussed here-in-above, to my mind, the trial Court has correctly acquitted the accused in this regard. 22. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has examined the matter, appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. The learned State counsel did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Such impugned judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court under the present set of circumstances, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned State counsel, so, the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 23. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 24. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant State appeal is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------