JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh against acquittal of respondent vide judgment dated 21.10.2008 passed in Police Challan No. 52-1-2005, in case FIR No. 144 of 2005, registered in Police Station Hamirpur under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that bus being driven by respondent carrying passengers of a wedding party had met with an accident on 2.5.2005 at about 12:30 P.M. near Ukhali, causing injuries to its occupants, leading into registration of FIR against respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. On completion of investigation, finding prima facie complicity of accused/respondent, challan was presented against him in the court. On conclusion of trial, respondent stands acquitted. 3. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent and also gone through the records of the case. 4. Occurrence of the accident is not disputed. Respondent was driving the bus involved in the accident, is also not disputed, as there is no cross-examination of PW-11 Raj Kumar, owner of the bus, establishing on record that on the date of accident, respondent was the driver of the bus and he was driving the bus at relevant point of time. From the trend of cross-examination, it is also apparent that the accident causing injuries to its occupants has also not been disputed. 5. It is the case of prosecution that the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of respondent, whereas the defence taken by respondent is that the accident had occurred on account of breakage of suspension (Patta). 6. Prosecution has examined PW-1 Hari Singh, PW-2 Banarsi Dass, PW-3 Kirlu Ram, PW-4 Prem Chand, PW-5 Narinder Singh, PW-6 Mast Ram and PW-8 Amrik Singh as spot/injured witnesses, who were traveling in the bus. Before discussing other evidence on record, scrutiny of their evidence is undertaken first. 7. Pw-8 Amrik Singh has not leant support to the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, nothing material against the respondent could be extracted, whereas in cross-examination by defence counsel, he had admitted that the accident had taken place on account of breakage of suspension (Patta) . 7. Pw-8 Amrik Singh has not leant support to the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, nothing material against the respondent could be extracted, whereas in cross-examination by defence counsel, he had admitted that the accident had taken place on account of breakage of suspension (Patta) . So far as evidence of rashness and negligence on the part of respondent in the statements of other spot witnesses is concerned, that can also not be considered as cogent and reliable evidence so as to construe that the respondent was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner, much less with gross negligence, as required to be established so as to fasten criminal liability upon him. 8. Pw-1 Hari Singh, PW-2 Banarsi Dass, PW-4 Prem Chand and PW-6 Mast Ram in their examination-in-chief though have stated that respondent was driving the bus in high speed, but they have not uttered even a single word with regard to driving of bus in rash and negligent manner. Speed is also relevant factor for determining rash and negligent driving. Undisputedly, the bus was being plied on National Highway No. 88. There is nothing in their statements so as to establish the driving of the bus with gross negligence. Though PW-5 Narinder Singh in his examination-in-chief at one place, has stated that the bus was being driven with speed, but in the same breath in the next line he stated that the speed was not so high. Therefore, unless the speed of the bus is proved to be so high that no prudent man was expected to drive the vehicle with such speed on a National High Way, high speed cannot be treated as rash and negligent driving. It is only PW-3 Kirlu Ram, who in his examination-in-chief has stated that the bus was being driven negligently in high speed. But in his cross-examination he has stated that the accident had taken place at a curve and he did not know that on the curve speed of bus was low. He has also stated that he could not say that accident had taken place on account of breakage of suspension (patta). 9. Pw-1 Hari Singh, in his cross-examination, has admitted that before accident, there was a sound under the bus, but he did not know that there was breakage of suspension. He has also stated that he could not say that accident had taken place on account of breakage of suspension (patta). 9. Pw-1 Hari Singh, in his cross-examination, has admitted that before accident, there was a sound under the bus, but he did not know that there was breakage of suspension. All other spot witnesses have also admitted that prior to accident, there was a sound from lower part of the bus and thereafter bus had tilted. 10. Pw-10 Ramesh Chand is Police Mechanic who had examined the bus mechanically after the accident. In his mechanical report he had reported that off side front rod spring centre bold (main suspension) was found to be broken at the time of mechanical examination and rod spring mounting bracket was also found to be loose. In his cross-examination he has admitted that at the time of mechanical examination, central bolt of main suspension was found broken with further admission that in case of breakage of bolt of main suspension, the bus can met with accident. No other evidence with regard to cause of accident is on record. 11. As referred herein above, injuries caused to the passengers and bus being driven by respondent, is not disputed, but that is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the respondent. For convicting the respondent, cogent, reliable and convincing evidence must be on record to prove the gross negligence and rashness on the part of respondent beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case. Rather from the evidence of prosecution, the defence of accused is probablized. It is settled law that respondent/accused is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, but to satisfy the preponderance of probability only. As discussed above, from the statements of spot witnesses as well as PW-10 Ramesh Chand who is a Police Mechanic, possibility of accident on account of breakage of central bolt of main suspension, cannot be ruled out. 12. It is settled law that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused is to be preferred. Moreover, respondent has advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court. From the deposition of spot witnesses and other evidence on record, as discussed above, rash and negligent driving of the respondent is not established. 12. It is settled law that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused is to be preferred. Moreover, respondent has advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court. From the deposition of spot witnesses and other evidence on record, as discussed above, rash and negligent driving of the respondent is not established. As no case is made out on the basis of spot/injured witnesses, there is no need to discuss the statements of other witnesses, who were associated during the investigation only for completion of trial. 13. From the scrutiny of evidence on record, it cannot be said that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence completely or properly or the acquittal of respondent has caused miscarriage of justice or resulted into travesty of justice. I find no material on record, so as to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merits is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by or on behalf of respondents are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.