JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been maintained by the appellant/State of Himachal Pradesh, laying challenge to judgment dated 31.01.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 30/2 of 2005/04, whereby the respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 01.09.2004, HC Jaswant Singh alongwith HC Baldev Singh went to lift, Shimla, where one accident was reported and recorded the statement of the complainant. The complainant in his statement has stated that he is posted in traffic staff and his duty is at lift point. On 01.09.2004 at about 10:45 A.M., he was near police Gumti at lift, Shimla in connection with his personal work, where one HRTC bus bearing sign board “Khatnol-Shimla” had stopped and passengers started deboarding the bus. The driver had parked the bus on one side. When driver started the bus, one person aged about 35-40 years, had come under the rear tyre of the bus and when he went closer, he found that both the rear tyres of bus, bearing No. HP-07-3261 had crossed over the legs and abdomen of the injured. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to IGMC, Shimla in a taxi. As per the complainant, the accident was a result of fault on the part of the driver. The statement after endorsement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR No. 269/04 was registered. Police prepared the site plan and the bus No. HP-07-3261 was taken into possession. The injured Jeet Ram was medically examined at IGMC Shimla and his MLC was procured. However, later on he succumbed to the injuries at IGMC, Shimla. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the learned Trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as twenty witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2008, acquitted the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, hence the present appeal. 5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2008, acquitted the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, hence the present appeal. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its right and true perspective and the accused has wrongly been acquitted and after re-appreciating the evidence the accused be convicted, as the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and there is nothing on record to prove rash and negligent driving of the accused, as no witness has supported the prosecution case. He has further argued that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the material, which has come on record and the judgment of acquittal needs no interference and the appeal be dismissed. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record carefully. 8. In the case at hand, the statements of PW2 Complainant Constable Devki Nandan, PW3 Sarwan Kumar, PW7 Het Ram and PW11, Ramesh Chand are very important since at the time of accident they were present on the spot. Besides them, statements of PW15 Dr. Yuvi Tayagi, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and PW20, Dr. Ramesh Chand, who had medically examined the deceased, are also required to be gone through. 9. The complainant, Constable Devki Nandan has appeared in the witness box as PW2 and deposed that in the year 2004, at 10:45 A.M., he was at main gate near lift. There was traffic on road. He heard cries that some person had come under the bus. He then saw that bus No. HP-07-3261, having route board from Khatnol was parked there and passengers were alighting the bus. He signaled the bus to stop. When he reached at rear portion of the bus, he found that a person had come under the rear tyre of the bus. He then saw that bus No. HP-07-3261, having route board from Khatnol was parked there and passengers were alighting the bus. He signaled the bus to stop. When he reached at rear portion of the bus, he found that a person had come under the rear tyre of the bus. He deposed that it is difficult to say how that person came under the tyres of the bus, as he was standing on the opposite side. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to IGMC, Shimla in a taxi. He informed regarding the accident at Police Assistance Room, the Mall Shimla. Police came on the spot and recorded his statement. Police prepared the spot map at his identification. In cross-examination, he deposed that it was difficult to judge who was at fault in the accident. Thereafter this witness was declared hostile and cross-examined at length. He admitted in cross-examination that as the bus started, the person came under the tyre of the bus. He however, denied that he disclosed the police that accident took place due to fault of the bus driver. He admitted in cross-examination that he was at Taxi Counter at the time of accident and the place of accident was not visible from Taxi Counter. He also admitted that bus driver had allowed the passengers to alight by parking the bus on one side and self stated that bus was parked at the place, where buses used to stop. 10. PW3, Sarwan Kumar, has deposed that he runs a tea stall near lift. On 01.09.2004, around 10:40 A.M., he was at his stall when a bus reached near rain shelter from Chhota Shimla side. He heard noise from the place where passengers used to board and deboard the bus. When he went there, HRTC bus was parked there and the bus had crossed over the legs of one person, who was lying on the road. The driver and conductor of the said bus were also there. He feigned ignorance that accused present in the Court was driver of the bus. He was declared hostile and cross-examined at length. He denied that he had mentioned number of the bus as HP-07-3261 in his statement. He also denied the suggestion that accident took place due to rash and negligence of the bus driver. He also denied having made statement to the police. 11. He was declared hostile and cross-examined at length. He denied that he had mentioned number of the bus as HP-07-3261 in his statement. He also denied the suggestion that accident took place due to rash and negligence of the bus driver. He also denied having made statement to the police. 11. PW7, Het Ram, Conductor of the bus, has deposed that on 01.09.2004, he alongwith driver Pawan Kumar, were coming from Khatnol and when they reached near lift, they stopped the bus near rain shelter to alight the passengers from it. When all the passengers had alighted the bus, the closed both doors and whistled and then they started. As the bus started, they heard noise of the persons from outside. They stopped the bus and came out. One person was lying on the conductor side on the rear portion of the bus. He was shifted to IGMC, Shimla in a Taxi. The person had not sustained any external injury. He feigned ignorance regarding as to how that person had fallen. He further deposed that injured had expired around 2/2:30 P.M. He deposed that at the time of accident, there were around 20-22 passengers in the bus. He denied the suggestion that injured had come under the bus. He was declared hostile and cross-examined at length. He denied the suggestion that the persons standing outside, had raised noise that some persons had come under the bus. He self stated that the person was at a distance of 2-3 feet. 12. PW11, Ramesh Chand, has deposed that in the year 2004, he was near Taxi Parking. He heard the noise that one person had struck against the bus near railing and that person had come under bus No. HP-07-3261. The bus was coming from Chhota Shimla to Bus Stand. He went to the spot. Many persons had gathered there. The person was injured and unconscious. He was shifted to hospital in a taxi. Police came to the spot, recorded the statements of the witnesses and got the photographs of the spot clicked. He feigned ignorance as to who was at fault in the accident. He was declared hostile and cross-examined at length. He denied having made statement to the police that accident took place due to negligence and high speed of the accused. He admitted that when he reached at the spot, bus was stopped. He feigned ignorance as to who was at fault in the accident. He was declared hostile and cross-examined at length. He denied having made statement to the police that accident took place due to negligence and high speed of the accused. He admitted that when he reached at the spot, bus was stopped. He also denied having heard that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. He admitted in his cross-examination that accident did not take place in his presence. 13. PW15, Dr. Yuvi Tayagi had conducted postmortem examination of the deceased and issued postmortem report. He opined hemorrhagic shock due to antemortem injuries as cause of death. He also opined that injuries, which caused the death, are possible in a vehicular accident. He found no external injury on the abdomen of the deceased. He also found no tyre marks on the body of the deceased. He also admitted the suggestion that tyres of the vehicle had not passed over the body of the deceased. 14. PW20, Dr. Ramesh Chand, had medically examined the deceased at IGMC, Shimla and found joint movements restricted on left hip region and contusion on left hip. He also found tenderness on abdomen, but no external injury was found. He though opined that these injuries are possible if one person is crushed under the tyres of the bus, however, during cross-examination, he admitted the possibility that when both rear tyres passes over the person, that part of the body would be completely pressed. He also admitted that in the present case, the person was not completely crushed. He found no tyre marks on the body of the deceased. 15. In addition to above key witness, the prosecution has also examined PW1, HHC Santosh Kumar, PW4, Saligram, PW5, HHC Duni Chand, PW6 Prakash Chand, PW8 Narinder Kumar, PW9 Satya Prakash, PW10 HC Baldev Singh, PW12, Bhupinder Singh, PW13, Raghunath Sharma, PW17, HC Jai Kishan, PW18, Daya Chand and PW14, I.O. of the case. 16. After exhaustively and carefully examining the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, though, it has been alleged by the prosecution that rear tyres of the bus had crossed over the body of the deceased, however, as per the statements of PW15, Dr. Yuvi Tayagi and PW20, Dr. Ramesh Chand, no external injury or tyre marks were found on the body of the deceased. Yuvi Tayagi and PW20, Dr. Ramesh Chand, no external injury or tyre marks were found on the body of the deceased. PW20 also admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was not completely crushed. Now coming to the statements of the key prosecution witnesses. No prosecution witness was able to depose as to how this accident has occurred, as every witness was at some distance from the place of accident. So, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that deceased had succumbed to the injury, caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused, as it has nowhere come in the statements of any of the witness that it was the accused who was rash and negligent in driving the bus. This Court even after reappreciating the evidence comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and conclusively. Therefore, it would be apt to conclude that the conclusion of acquittal of the accused, as arrived at by the learned Trial Court is not wrong. 17. 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. 18. 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. 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. 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.” 19. In view of the settled legal position, as aforesaid, and on the basis of material, which has come on record, it is more than safe to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the findings of acquittal, as recorded by the learned trial Court, needs no interference, as the same are the result of appreciating the facts and law correctly and to their true perspective. Accordingly, the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.