JUIDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge(oral) Assailing the judgment dated 27.10.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan, in Criminal Case No.38/2 of 2005/04, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Hari Singh, whereby respondent-accused Hari Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted, the State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.10.2004, Shri Ratna Ram (PW-1) and Shri Randhir Singh (PW-3) were travelling on a motorcycle (HERO HONDA). At about 4.30 p.m., when they reached ahead of Kali Temple at Kala Amb - Nahan road, the accused, who was driving Bus No.HR-68-3354, in a rash and negligent manner, came at high speed and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which both, PW-1 and PW-3 sustained injuries. Shri Gurbachan Singh (PW-2) informed the police on telephone. HC Rikhi Ram (PW-11) upon receiving information reached the spot and recorded statement of PW-1, on the basis of which FIR No.210 of 2004, dated 17.10.2004 (Ex. PW-9/A), under the provisions of Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Nahan. Injured were taken to the hospital and were got medically examined from Dr. Nirmal Prakash (PW-6), who issued MLC (Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B), which were taken on record. With the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. Statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded false implication. 5.After trial, accused stands acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 6. In order to establish as to whether the accused was driving the vehicle at the given point in time, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, as a result of which the complainant party actually received injuries and that the accused fled away from the spot and tried to destroy evidence, testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 need to be examined. 7.Admittedly, there is no spot witness of the incident. Shri Gurbachan Singh (PW-2) reached the spot only after the occurrence of the incident. The fact that PW-1 and PW-3 sustained injuries cannot be disputed and in any event stands established through the testimony of the doctor as also the medical record (Ex. PW-6/A and 6/B). 8. In Court PW-3 has denied having identified the accused at the spot of the occurrence. He admits that he saw the accused in Court for the first time. According to PW-1, the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at high speed. Now, what is this “high speed” has not been deposed by him. He states that the vehicle was being driven on wrong side, but then this version of his does not find support from other corroborative evidence placed on record by the prosecution. He, in his cross-examination, admits that the construction work of the road was in progress at the place where the accident occurred. 9. PW-3 has deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven at a speed of 80-90 kms per hour and driver of the offending vehicle was on the wrong side. Significantly, this witness, as already observed, has deposed that he had not seen the accused driving the vehicle at the relevant time. His version with regard to speed of the bus does not inspire confidence, for the simple reason that except for the breaking of the rear view mirror, no damage was caused to the motorcycle. 10. Prosecution also tried to establish its case through the testimony of Shri Mohan Lal (PW-7), who was the conductor of the bus, but in spite of extensive cross-examination, nothing fruitful could come out from his testimony. 11. It has come on record through the testimony of the Investigating Officer that the driver of the vehicle had appliedbrakes and tried to save the motorcyclist as also the pillion rider, by taking the bus to the extreme left side. In this backdrop, possibility of the injured himself driving the motorcycle at a high speed cannot be ruled out. Prosecution has not been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that the accused, at the time of the occurrence of the incident, was in fact driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and as a result of the same complainant party received injuries. Prosecution has not been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that the accused, at the time of the occurrence of the incident, was in fact driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and as a result of the same complainant party received injuries. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that the road in question is a busy highway and vehicles frequently pass by at the place where the accident occurred. 12. Consequently, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, creditworthy, reliable and independent piece of evidence. 13. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the trial Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. As such, the appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.