JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant appeal under Section 378 CrPC has been filed against judgment dated 19.11.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, HP in Cr. Case No. 60-II-2008/146-II-98, whereby respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.5.1998, at about 5.00 p.m. Mohinder Singh, complainant lodged a complaint with the Police Station Nadaun, stating therein that he alongwith his father namely Kurpal Ram (deceased) was going to Nadaun Bazaar to buy some household articles and unfortunately, at around 7.30 p.m. when they were returning to home, and reached place Baghanala near village Nagarda, one Tempo bearing Registration No. JK-02-4707 (hereafter, offending vehicle) being driven by respondent- accused, came from Nagarda side towards Hoshiarpur side in excessive speed and struck against complainant’s father, who fell down in the drain and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Driver sped away from the place of occurrence alongwith vehicle but subsequently, he was apprehended by Shri Kuldeep Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, who chased him on a scooter. Complainant, Mohinder Singh further reported that he also came to know from the aforesaid persons that accused, while coming from Hoshiarpur side also caused injury to one Shri Milkhi Ram, at a place known as Baghnala by striking offending vehicle against him at place Doligharana. It was also reported to the police that respondent also caused hurt to aforesaid person Milkhi Ram, while driving offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. 3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR Ext. PW-4/A came to be registered at Police Station, Nadaun. Police, after completion of investigation, presented Challan in the competent Court of law, who, being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against respondent, put notice of accusation to him, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned Court below, on the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution, acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under aforesaid provisions. 4. Learned Court below, on the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution, acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under aforesaid provisions. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid acquittal by learned Court below, State has filed present appeal for setting aside judgment of acquittal and for convicting the respondent for offence, allegedly committed by him, under aforesaid provisions. 5. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned Court below, vehemently argued that same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that bare perusal of impugned judgment suggests that evidence led on record by prosecution has not been read in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record and respondent has been acquitted on very flimsy grounds, as such impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Court below deserves to be set aside. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Chauhan made this Court to travel through the evidence led on record by prosecution to demonstrate that prosecution has successfully proved on record that respondent was driving offending vehicle at the relevant time, and he caused injury on the person of Shri Kurpal Ram (deceased), as a result of which, he succumbed to injuries on the spot itself. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that it is also proved on record that before causing injury to aforesaid person, namely Kurpal Ram, respondent also caused injury to one Milkhi Ram, at a place known as Doligharana, while driving offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan, contended that bare perusal of evidence led on record suggests the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that at the relevant time, vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent, as such there was no occasion for the learned Court below to acquit the respondent, especially in view of the fact that one person lost his life in the unfortunate accident. 6. Ms. Salochana Rana, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused, supported the impugned judgment. While refuting aforesaid submissions having been made by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. 6. Ms. Salochana Rana, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused, supported the impugned judgment. While refuting aforesaid submissions having been made by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. Salochana Rana vehemently argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Court below, rather same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective prosecution as such same deserves to be upheld. Ms. Rana, while inviting attention of this Court to evidence led on record, strenuously argued that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, rather material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 has turned hostile and none of the prosecution witnesses could recognize the respondent, who was allegedly driving ill fated vehicle at the relevant time. With the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Rana, contended that present appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. During proceedings of this case, this Court had an occasion to peruse impugned judgment as well as evidence led on record by prosecution, perusal whereof, certainly does not suggest that learned trial Court misconstrued or mis-appreciated the evidence led on record by prosecution, rather this Court, after having carefully perused impugned judgment, vis-a-vis evidence led on record, has no hesitation to conclude that there is no illegality or infirmity in the in the judgment passed by learned Court below. After having carefully gone through the evidence, this Court, is of the view that prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the relevant time, offending vehicle was being driven by respondent, because, admittedly, none of the prosecution witnesses stated anything specific with regard to driving of vehicle by respondent, rather all the prosecution witnesses refused to recognize him in the court. In the instant case, prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses. It also emerges from the record that respondent allegedly caused accident at two distinct places i.e. at Doligharana, where he allegedly struck vehicle against PW-5 Milkhi Ram and another at place known as Baghnala, where he struck vehicle against deceased Kurpal Ram, who succumbed to injuries on the spot. It also emerges from the record that respondent allegedly caused accident at two distinct places i.e. at Doligharana, where he allegedly struck vehicle against PW-5 Milkhi Ram and another at place known as Baghnala, where he struck vehicle against deceased Kurpal Ram, who succumbed to injuries on the spot. Prosecution, with a view to prove these accidents, examined two sets of witnesses i.e. PW-1 Raj Kumar and PW-5 Milkhi Ram, are witnesses of episode which took place at Doligharana, whereas PW-4 Mohinder Singh (complainant) and PW-7 Ramesh Chand, are witnesses of incident which took place at Baghnala. As has been mentioned above, none of these witnesses could recognize the registration number of offending vehicle as well as accused, who was allegedly driving offending vehicle at the time of time of alleged incident. Unfortunately, in the instant case, all these prosecution witnesses have stated before learned Court below that they came to know about identity of accused and offending vehicle after being told by Rajesh Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar, PW-6 and PW-8, who allegedly, chased accused after the alleged incident at place Doligharana. Since PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7, had no occasion to see unfortunate incident with their eyes, rightly no reliance was placed upon their statements by the learned Court below because it has come specifically in their statements that they only came to know with regard to identity of the vehicle and accused from Shri Rajesh Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar, PW-6 and PW-8. In the instant case, as per version put forth by prosecution, offending vehicle alongwith its driver was apprehended by persons namely Rajesh Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar, PW-6 and PW-8 at place called Manpul, which is admittedly situate far away from alleged site of occurrence. As per version put forth by these prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-6 and PW-8, they had taken pass from many vehicles while chasing offending vehicle and on the top of it, even PW-6 and PW-8, failed to recognize accused in the Court, because it has specifically come on record that PW-6 and PW-8 failed to prove that accused was driving offending vehicle on public way at high speed in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others, as such, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the finding returned by learned Court below. As per Section 279 IPC, it was bounden duty of the prosecution to prove that vehicle involved in the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by accused but, unfortunately, prosecution was not able to connect accused with the commission of offence as all the material witnesses of prosecution failed to state categorically that it was accused, who was driving vehicle at the relevant time. Apart from this, none of the prosecution witnesses specifically stated that offending vehicle was involved in commission of offence. Most importantly, none of the prosecution witnesses stated that they saw accused while driving offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, he caused injury to Shri Milkhi Ram and Shri Kurpal Ram. PW-1, Raj Kumar while deposing before the Court stated that in the month of May, 1998, he alongwith his father was going home and he was behind his father and in the meantime, one tempo bearing Registration No. JK-02-4707, came from Hoshiarpur side and dashed against his father. However, he was unable to state that who was at fault in the accident. Though, he was declared hostile, but in his cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he feigned ignorance that who was driving offending vehicle. Apart from this, he failed to recognize accused person in the court, as driver of offending vehicle and he specifically denied portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement recorded under Section 161 CrP.C. Mark A, of Ext. PW-9/E. In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he was at a distance of 40-50 metres from his father and he has studied upto 5th standard. He further stated that he could read English but, interestingly, was unable to read calendar hanging on the wall of the Court room. It has also come in his statement that many vehicles were passing on the road, at the time of alleged incident. 9. Leaving everything aside, there is no explanation worth the name of on record that how, persons namely Rajesh Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar, PW-6 and PW-8, came to know about alleged accident, because there is nothing in the statement of PW-1 Raj Kumar, who was first person to witness the accident, from where it could be inferred that PW-6 and PW-8, were also present on the spot. It has nowhere come in his statement that immediately after noticing alleged accident, PW-6 and PW-8, chased the accused on their scooter. Once, there is admission on the part of this witness i.e. PW-1, that he was at a distance of 40-50 metres from his father, learned trial Court rightly ignored his admission/statement with regard to registration number of Tempo (offending vehicle) involved in the accident. Though, PW-5 Milkhi Ram, has made an endeavour to support prosecution story, in his examination-in-chief, however, he has nowhere stated that it was accused and none else who was driving offending vehicle, rather, it has come in the statement that 7-8 years ago, on 24.5.1998, when coming from Nadaun after closing shop, with his son (PW-1), a Tempo came from Hamirpur side and collided with him and he received injuries on his head and arm. There is no mention, if any, of Rajesh Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar, i.e. PW-6 and PW-8 that immediately after accident, they chased offending vehicle. Both the aforesaid witnesses PW-1 and PW-5, have categorically admitted the suggestion put to them that many vehicles were passing thorugh place of incident at the time of accident. 10. PW-4 Mohinder Singh and PW-7 Ramesh Chand, who allegedly witnessed the accident at place known as Baghnala, wherein unfortunately person namely Kurpal Ram lost his life, also failed to recognize registration number of offending vehicle as well as accused, because, it has specifically come in their statements that they have only come to know of identity of accused and registration number of vehicle from PW-6 and PW-8. PW-4, in his statement stated that on 24.5.1998, at around 7.30-7.45 p.m. accident had taken place wherein his father lost his life and the vehicle with which deceased had suffered injury was being driven by accused, present in the court. It has specifically come in his statement that he saw accused when he was brought by the police. Both the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW-4 and PW-7 have categorically stated in their statements that they were disclosed name of accused as well as number of offending vehicle by the police. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that many vehicle were moving on the road, at the time of accident. Even PW-7, in his cross-examination, stated that deceased was 7-8 metres ahead of him and nobody was there at the spot. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that many vehicle were moving on the road, at the time of accident. Even PW-7, in his cross-examination, stated that deceased was 7-8 metres ahead of him and nobody was there at the spot. Aforesaid version of PW-7 certainly creates doubt with regard to version having been put forth by PW-4, who in his statement, stated that he was with his father, at the time of alleged occurrence, rather, statement of PW-7 if is read in its entirety, certainly belies presence of PW-4 at the spot, during alleged accident. PW-7, in his statement, stated that Kuldeep Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, came to the spot and they chased driver of offending vehicle and brought him to police. 11. After having carefully perused statements of PW-4 and PW-7, conclusion can be safely drawn by this Court that even PW-6 and PW-8, had no occasion to witness the accident with their eyes, rather, they came at the spot after noise made by PW-7. It is not understood when PW-6 and PW-8 had not witnessed the accident, with their eyes, how they could chase offending vehicle allegedly being driven by respondent, because, at the relevant time, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that they had disclosed registration number of offending vehicle to PW-6 and PW-8. Even PW-1 and PW-5 nowhere stated that PW-6 and PW-8 were informed by them with regard to accident especially about registration number of offending vehicle, as such, story put forth by the prosecution does not appear to be trustworthy. 12. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that it has nowhere come in the statement of any of the prosecution witnesses, who had an occasion to see the accident with their eyes, that immediately after accident, they informed PW-6 and PW-8 with regard to registration number of offending vehicle as well as accused, as such, story of accused being apprehended by PW-6 and PW-8, is not worth lending any credence, because, admittedly, they had no prior knowledge with regard to involvement of offending vehicle as well as accused in the accident. 13. 13. Leaving everything aside, this Court was unable to find anything in the statements of prosecution witnesses, from where it could be inferred that vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently that too at high speed, by the respondent, as such, this Court sees substantial force in the defence taken by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC that he had not struck vehicle against Shri Milkhi Ram and Kurpal Ram. 14. Evidence discussed herein above is sufficient to hold that in given facts and circumstances, two views are possible in the present case and as such present, accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the present case, prosecution story does not appear to be plausible/ trustworthy and as such same cannot be relied upon. In this regard, I may refer to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in State of U.P. vs. Ghambhir Singh, AIR 2005 (92) SCC 2440, where Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if on the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- “6. So far as Hori Lal, PW-1 is concerned, he had been sent to fetch a basket from the village and it was only a matter of coincidence that while he was returning he witnessed the entire incident. The High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his testimony because he evidence clearly shows that he had an animus against the appellants. Moreover, he evidence was not corroborated by objective circumstances. Though it was his categorical case that all of them fired, no injury caused by rifle was found and only two wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Apart from this PW-3 did not mention the presence of either PW-1 or PW-2 at the time of occurrence. All these circumstances do create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The presence of these three witnesses becomes doubtful if their evidence is critically scrutinized. May be it is also possible to take a view in favour of the prosecution, but since the High Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a finding in favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. May be it is also possible to take a view in favour of the prosecution, but since the High Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a finding in favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred.” 15. Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned trial Court and same is upheld. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Bails bonds, if any, furnished by the accused, are also discharged. 16. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.