JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. —The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh assailing the judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondent (hereinafter to be called as "the accused") in Criminal case No. 109-II/01, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, dated 10.02.2009, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 2. Briefly stating the facts, as per the prosecution story, giving rise to the present appeal are that on 04.08.2001, at about 5.30 pm, at place Chakkar near Milk Plant, Balh, District Mandi, the accused, who was driving the Scooter, bearing registration No. HP-11-2244, in a rash and negligent manner, hit Smt. Khimi Devi, due to which, she sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. On the basis of statement of Sevak Ram (eye witness of the spot), Ext. PW-3/B, Police registered FIR, Ext. PW-6/A and endorsement to this effect is Ext. PW-6/B. After lodging of FIR, I.O. had investigated the matter and prepared site plan of the spot. He took into possession the Scooter in question along with its documents and Driving License, vide memo Ext. PW-3/A. I.O. has also obtained MLC, Ext. PW-4/A, of injured Khimi Devi and obtained opinion of Doctor, Ext. PW-5/D qua the injuries sustained by Smt. Khimi Devi. X-ray of injured Smt. Khimi Devi, vide Ext. PW-5/A to C and mechanical report of Scooter in question was also obtained. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused, vide impugned judgment dated 10.02.2009, hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone the record carefully. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has argued that the learned Court below has ignored the material evidence and acquitted the accused, which findings are perverse and the appeal may be allowed after setting aside the findings of acquittal. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the findings, as recorded by the learned Court below are just, reasoned and after appreciating the facts, which have come on record to its true perspective. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the findings, as recorded by the learned Court below are just, reasoned and after appreciating the facts, which have come on record to its true perspective. As the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 7. PW-1, Khimi Devi, who received injuries in the accident, has appeared in the witness box and stated that she has no knowledge about the said accident. In her cross examination she has deposed a differ version, she stated that the accident had occurred, as she had tried to cross the road by running on the road and due to this reason, the scooter hit her. 8. PW-2, Leela Dhar, has stated that the Scooter came to the spot at a high speed and hit the lady (Khimi Devi). But, in his cross-examination he deposed that he has not seen the Scooter coming from the opposite side nor he has knowledge whether Khimi Devi was crossing the road. 9. PW-3, Sevak Ram, has also deposed a differ version, he deposed that PW-1, Khimi Devi was crossing the road without ascertaining the clearance of traffic on the road and there was no fault on the part of the accused. 10. PW-5, Dr. S.K. Malhotra, has deposed that after medical examination, he found fracture injuries sustained to Khimi Devi and issued opinion, Ext. PW-5/D. PW-4, Dr. Vanita Kapoor, has deposed that after medical examination, she had issued MLC, Ext. PW-4/A. 11. Thus, in the absence of any reasonable and plausible explanation, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution story and the contradictory statements of the witnesses create suspicion. Even the injured has not supported the case of the prosecution, other eye witnesses has also not stated anything with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 12. It has been held in K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. 12. It has been held in K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 13. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. So, in the opinion of this Court, when the identity of the accused is not established, the findings of the learned Court below cannot be said to be perverse and against the law, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the discussion made herein above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.