JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2007 passed by the learned Munsiff JMIC, Reasi in File No. 127/Challan, acquitting the respondent- Nanak Chand (for brevity ‘accused’) of the charge under Sections 279/304-A RPC. The case arose out of FIR No.09 of 2002 registered at Police Station Reasi. 2. The aforesaid judgment is being challenged by the appellant-State on the grounds that the same is bad in law and is against facts; that the trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in its true and proper perspective; that the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures; that the injured - Balkar Chand has proved the negligent and rash act of the respondent herein while driving the Bus which caused the accident resulting in fatal injuries to Kaka-deceased. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Briefly, the prosecution story is that on 26.01.2002, Police of Police Station Reasi received information from reliable sources that the accused, who was driving Bus of Police Department and was going towards Gran Morh from Reasi, and at 8.30 A.M, he caused an accident with a Scooter which was being driven by the deceased, namely, Kaka S/o Avtar Chand alongwith one pillion rider. It was further the case of the prosecution that Scooter was driven without registration number and he tried to overtake the Bus, as a result, the Scooter collided with the Bus and accident took place. Upon this an FIR No. 09/2002 for offence under Sections 279/304-A RPC came to be registered. After investigation was complete, the Challan was presented against the accused before the Court of Munsiff JMIC, Reasi. 5. On 02.01.2003, accused was charged sheeted under Sections 279/304-A RPC who denied the charges. The prosecution in support of its case produced and examined PWs Balkar Chand, Avtar Chand, Joginder Singh, Krishan Singh, Manzoor Hussain, Maharaj Krishan and Dr. Sneh Lata as witnesses. However, Investigating officer of the case was not produced. 6. PW-3 Avtar Chand stated that on 26.01.2002 his son, namely, Kaka and Balkar Chand were going to Jyotipuram for selling Mutton on Scooter. His son was driving the Scooter and Balkar Chand was sitting behind. He received a telephonic message that an accident has taken place and when he reached at Hospital, his son had already died. 6. PW-3 Avtar Chand stated that on 26.01.2002 his son, namely, Kaka and Balkar Chand were going to Jyotipuram for selling Mutton on Scooter. His son was driving the Scooter and Balkar Chand was sitting behind. He received a telephonic message that an accident has taken place and when he reached at Hospital, his son had already died. He inquired from his Nephew about the accident, who told that when they reached Gran Morh, a Police Vehicle was turning towards left side and then right side and collided with the Scooter as a result of which Scooter fell about 10 feet away from the road. He is also the witness of receipt of dead body i.e., EXPW-AC. On cross-examination he stated that the pillion rider received only minor injuries. He further stated that it is not true that his son was overtaking the Bus from wrong side due to which accident took place. 7. PW-1 Krishan Singh is the witness to the seizure of Scooter i.e, EXPW-KS. PW-4 Joginder Singh is also witness of seizure and receipt of dead body i.e., EXPW-BC and EXPW-OC. PW-7 Maharaj Krishan has mechanically checked the vehicle (Bus) and issued certificate EXPW-MK. PW-6 Constable Manzoor Husasin is witness to the seizure of Bus i.e., EXPW-MH. PW-8 Dr. Sneh Lala has conducted the post mortem of the deceased Kaka and issued post Mortem report i.e., EXPW-MO. 8. PW-1 Balkar Chand has stated that on 26.01.2002 he was going to Jyotipuram from Pouni on Scooter along with deceased-Kaka who was driving it, he was pillion rider. He deposed that when they reached Gran Morh, there was a police vehicle on the road and when their Scooter reached near the Bus the driver suddenly turned the Bus towards the right side and hit the Scooter with its rear tyre, as a result of which deceased Kaka Ram sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Hospital in the same Bus, where he succumbed to his injuries. It was further deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligence and carelessness of the driver of the Bus. He also identified the accused in the Court. On cross-examination he stated that the accident took place at Gran Morh where there are two shops. He cannot say as to which direction the police Bus was going, but bus was stationary. He also identified the accused in the Court. On cross-examination he stated that the accident took place at Gran Morh where there are two shops. He cannot say as to which direction the police Bus was going, but bus was stationary. He further stated that Bus had hardly moved 4/5 feet when it hit the Scooter. Deceased-Kaka fell down on the left side. The Scooter got hit by the rear bumper of the Bus, however, deceased-Kaka did not come under the Bus. He stated that the Bus stopped at the same place. He stated that it is not true that deceased was trying to cross the Police Bus at high speed and due to imbalance it collided with the bus. 9. This is the only evidence produced by prosecution; after recording the statement of accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C, Court acquitted the accused on the grounds that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and PW Balkar Chand the injured witness did not inspire confidence of Court due to non corroboration. 10. I have given my though full consideration to whole aspects of matter and law on the point. The scope of power of appellate court in case of acquittal has been highlighted by Apex Court in case AIR 2014 SC 2200 in case titled ‘Muralidhar alias Gidda & anr. v State of Karnatka’ [Criminal Appeal No.551 with 791 and 1081 of 2011, D/- 9-4-2014], which read as under :- 10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup[1], highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years. 11. 11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed, "............the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons." 12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu[3], Madan Mohan Singh[4], Atley[5], Aher Raja Khima[6], Balbir Singh[7], M.G. Agarwal[8], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade[11], Lekha Yadav[12], Khem Karan[13], Bishan Singh[14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai[15], K. Gopal Reddy[16], Tota Singh[17], Ram Kumar[18], Madan Lal[19], Sambasivan[20], Bhagwan Singh[21], Harijana Thirupala[22], C. Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sanjay Thakran[25] and Chandrappa[26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following : (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court. 13. In ‘Ghurey Lal v State of U.P.’ (2008) 10 SCC 450 , the Court has culled out the principles relating to the appeals from a judgment of acquittal which are in line with what we have observed above.” 11. From bare perusal of challan, it is evident that prosecution has cited as many as 11 witnesses, but examined only 7 witnesses. I/O in the case has not been examined. Perusal of relevant parts of the above witnesses examined so, it is evident that except PW-Balkar Chand, all others are formal witnesses. Court below has held that PW Balkar Chand, who was with deceased at the time accident as pillian rider, has categorically stated that offending vehicle was stationary; at the same time he has stated that accused caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. Court below has also held that deceased while driving the scooter has also loaded a bag full of meat. This finding of court below is not perverse in nature. 12. Further for constituting the offence u/s 304-A RPC, there should be direct nexus between rash and negligence act with death of person. Examination of I/O especially in accident case is most important. This finding of court below is not perverse in nature. 12. Further for constituting the offence u/s 304-A RPC, there should be direct nexus between rash and negligence act with death of person. Examination of I/O especially in accident case is most important. Because it is only I/O, who can throw light about his finding with regard to width of road, speed of vehicle, whether there were any marks of rubbing of tyres of vehicle and whether driver was known to vehicles prior to accident. Further due to non examination of I/O and SHO of concerned police, FIR, challan, site map, seizures of vehicles and other relevant papers in challan have remained unproved. Another eye witness, namely, PW Inder Dass cited in the Challan has not been produced for establishing the offence under Section 304-A RPC. 13. Prosecution has not proved that there was direct nexus with the death of the deceased-Kaka and rash and negligent act committed by the accused. Hence, I don’t find any infirmity of law and facts in the judgment of Court below; this appeal is dismissed accordingly.