JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh, assailing the judgment of acquittal, dated 01.03.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P, in criminal case No. 115-1 of 2006/152-II of 2006, under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as “IPC”) 2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present appeal as per the prosecution story are that on 29.06.2006, at about 10:30 a.m., Arjun Singh and his wife Kesari Devi were waiting for the bus at the bus stand, Hamirpur. In the meantime, a bus bearing registration No. HP-22-7103 came their and driver of the said bus while reversing the bus, hit the rear side of the bus with the pillar and crushed the right arm of Kesari Devi between the rear side of the bus and the pillar. As per the prosecution case, the accident took place due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus. After the said accident, the injured was taken to hospital and intimation was given to the Police, upon which, an entry in the daily diary, Ext. PW-9/A was made and S.I. Desh Raj went to the hospital. He recorded the statement of Arjun Singh, Ext. PW- 11/B, which was sent to Police station, where F.I.R., Ext. PW- 10/A, was registered against Anil Kumar/accused (hereinafter to be called as “the accused”). The medical examination of Kesari Devi was conducted by Dr. Ashok Kaushal, who found a crushed injury on the arm of the injured, which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. He opined the nature of injury to be grievous and issued MLC, Ext. PW-6/A. S.I. Desh Raj conducted the investigation and prepared site plan, Ext. PW-11/C. Photographs, including the negatives, Ext. P-1 to P-8 were taken and bus bearing registration No. HP-22-7103 was seized alongwith its documents, vide seizure memo, Ext. PW-3/A. The mechanical examination of the bus was conducted and no mechanical defect was found in the bus. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version and after completion of investigation, the challan was presented before the Court. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses. PW-3/A. The mechanical examination of the bus was conducted and no mechanical defect was found in the bus. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version and after completion of investigation, the challan was presented before the Court. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 12 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, vide impugned judgment dated 01.03.2008, acquitted the accused for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, hence the present appeal. 4. Learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has argued that the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court is without appreciating the fact that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He has further argued that after re-appreciating the prosecution evidence, the accused be convicted for the offences he was charged with. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondent has argued that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and, therefore, the well reasoned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Law Officer and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined HHC, Ramesh Chand, No. 76 (Mechanic Police Line Hamirpur) as PW-1, who has mechanically examined the vehicle and submitted his report, Ext. PW-1/A. 8. PW-2, Ramesh Chand, driver of the bus has deposed that on 29.06.2006, after parking the bus at bus stand counter, he went to HRTC canteen for consuming tea. In the meantime, helper Rajeev Kumar came their and told him that a person had entered inside the bus and had started the same, when he came outside, he found that the accused has hit the bus with a pillar and caused injury to a woman. 9. In the meantime, helper Rajeev Kumar came their and told him that a person had entered inside the bus and had started the same, when he came outside, he found that the accused has hit the bus with a pillar and caused injury to a woman. 9. PW-3, Rajinder Singh, has deposed that on 29.06.2006, a bus, bearing registration No. HP-22-7103, was parked at bus stand counter and there was no passenger in the said bus, at about 12:45 p.m. a person, whose name after the said accident was found to be Anil Kumar, has hit the rear side of the bus with the pillar. 10. PW-4, Sarwan Singh, has deposed that on 29.06.2006, the accused entered inside the bus and reversed the bus, which was hit with the pillar and caused injury to a woman. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there were 10-12 passengers in the bus and driver, conductor were not present in the bus. He further deposed that he apprehended the accused and handed over him to Police. 11. PW-5, Arjun Singh (husband of the injured), has feigned his ignorance as to who was reversing the bus. He has further deposed that no passenger was present in the bus. PW-6, Dr. Ashok Kaushal, has conducted the medical examination of the injured and found a crushed injury on the arm of the injured and opined the same to be grievous. He issued MLC, Ext. PW-6/A, which bears his signatures. 12. PW-7, Kesari Devi (injured), has deposed that on 29.06.2006, when she was standing with the pillar, suddenly a bus came and hit her, due to which she sustained injury. She has further deposed that the name of the accused was told to her by the Police and the other witnesses. She deposed that she had seen the accused on one occasion prior to the date of deposition, but not prior to the same, so she has not established that the accused was driving the bus on the said day. 13. PW-8, Rajesh Kumar, deposed that he had gone to canteen with the driver of the bus and when he came out, he found that the accused had caused the accident. PW-9, MHC, Ajit Singh, No. 19, proved Nakal Rapat No. 21, Ext. PW- 9/A and admitted the same to be true. PW-10, SI Mahinder Singh, proved the FIR, Ext. PW-10/A. 14. PW-9, MHC, Ajit Singh, No. 19, proved Nakal Rapat No. 21, Ext. PW- 9/A and admitted the same to be true. PW-10, SI Mahinder Singh, proved the FIR, Ext. PW-10/A. 14. PW-11, Desh Raj, Investigation Officer, has deposed that on 29.06.2006, after receiving telephonic information about the accident, he reached at the place of accident and recorded the statement of Arjun Singh, Ext. PW- 11/B, under Section 154 Cr. PC. The medical examination of the injured was got conducted and MLC, Ext. PW-6/A was obtained. Site plan, Ext. PW-11/C was prepared and Photographs, including negatives, Ext. P-1 to P-8 were taken, the bus was mechanically examined and the statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version and on the same day, at about 7:30 p.m., the accused was arrested from Pakka Bharo. 15. PW-12, Wattan Singh, has deposed that the bus was suddenly started. He further deposed that the accused was apprehended by Sarwan and he called the Police officials and found that the accused had run away from the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he arrived at the spot after the accident and had not seen the accused sitting on the driver seat. 16. The case of the prosecution is that the accused while trying to reverse the bus, hit the same with the pillar and caused injury to a woman, however there is no evidence on record to show that how the key of the bus came in the hand of the accused when the driver has stated that he always takes the key with him. Further there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, as PW-4 has stated that he apprehended the accused and handed over him to Police, however such fact was not supported by PW-11, SI Desh Raj, Investigation Officer. As far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the same could not be proved, as PW-5, husband of the injured and PW-12 could not tell that at the time of accident as to who was reversing the bus. As far as the statement of PW-2, driver of the bus, is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon, as he is an interested witness and having a reason to shift his liability towards other person. 17. As far as the statement of PW-2, driver of the bus, is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon, as he is an interested witness and having a reason to shift his liability towards other person. 17. Keeping in view the evidence, which has come on record and also taking into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses, even after re-appreciating the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the well reasoned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court, needs no interference. 18. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. 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/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. 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. 20. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal : “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 21. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, 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.