ORDER : Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Magistrate, the State has filed the instant appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 13.12.2002 at about 11:30 p.m., at place Jamanabad Chowk Kangra, an elderly man Ramji Dass was crossing the road. The accused-respondent was seen riding a scooter No. HP 40-3326 on the highway towards Ichhi in a rash and negligent manner, as a result whereof, the scooter collided with Ramji Dass. The complainant was the pillion rider, who fell down and sustained injuries. The elderly man Ramji Dass and accused-respondent were seriously injured and in the meanwhile, the grandson of Ramji Dass came on the spot and took the Ramji Dass as also the respondent-accused to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. A telephonic message was sent to the Police Post Gaggal about the factum of accident and on the basis of such information Rapat No. 9 was entered and Head Constable Kaur Singh proceeded to the hospital to record statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. After recording the same, it was forwarded to the Police Station, Kangra, upon which First Information Report under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was lodged against the accused-respondent. 3. The Investigating Officer undertook the investigation and visited the spot on the next day. He prepared a site map accordingly. However, in the meanwhile, Ramji Dass died and post-mortem was conducted on his body. The scooter was impounded and driving licence of respondent-accused was taken into possession. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. 4. On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared a challan and presented the same before the learned Trial Court, who summoned the respondent-accused and on the basis of the material presented before it, notice of accusation for offence under aforesaid sections was put to him, who denied the same. 5. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied every incriminating circumstance and contended that he had been falsely implicated. 6. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused-respondent, constraining the respondent-State to file the instant appeal. 7. At the outset, the Court needs to discuss the scope of interference in an appeal arising out of acquittal. 8. 6. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused-respondent, constraining the respondent-State to file the instant appeal. 7. At the outset, the Court needs to discuss the scope of interference in an appeal arising out of acquittal. 8. In State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and another (2007) 3 SCC 755 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellate Court can review the evidence and interfere with the order of acquittal only if the approach of lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the decision is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. However, mere possibility of two views would not be a ground for Appellate Court to take the view which would upset the decision of the Trial Court. 9. In Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that when two views are possible on evidence on record, one taken by the Trial Court in favour of the accused should not be disturbed by the appellate court. 10. In Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016) 4 SCC 357 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on different pedestal from that of appeal against conviction. In appeal against acquittal, where presumption of innocence in favour of accused is reinforced, appellate court would interfere with order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. 11. Having set out the scope of the instant appeal, now the evidence led by the prosecution needs to be looked into. 12. The complainant Shri Upender Kumar, who was pillion rider and also suffered injuries has not supported the prosecution case and resiled from his previous statement. It was then, he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor at length but of no avail. In his cross-examination, he stated that a truck came on the spot in a very high speed and it was on account that the accident took place. According to him, the truck collided with scooter, as a result of which, he alongwith driver of the scooter fell down. Although, he admitted his signature on the statement, but explained that nothing has happened in the manner as recorded in the statement. According to him, the truck collided with scooter, as a result of which, he alongwith driver of the scooter fell down. Although, he admitted his signature on the statement, but explained that nothing has happened in the manner as recorded in the statement. He denied the suggestion that he is trying to save his friend from punishment. 13. One Sandeep Kumar, who was stated to be another eye witness appeared in the witness box, but he did not support the prosecution story and was, thus, declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he stated that there was no fault of the accused-respondent in the accident. 14. One Sunil Kumar, who happened to be the grandson of the Ramji Dass was also examined, who did support the prosecution case, but then his statement is to be taken as a pinch of salt, as evidently he was not even at the spot nor an eye witness to the accident, as has rightly been concluded by the learned Trial Magistrate. As a matter of fact, the statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded on the same day but was recorded on the next day, which raises a great suspicion in the prosecution case. 15. Apart from above, it would be noticed that as per the prosecution story there are as many as four other eye witnesses stated to be present on the spot but there is no plausible explanation whatsoever from the prosecution side as to why none of these witnesses were examined. 16. Moreover, the complainant in this case had sustained injuries and in case the accused-respondent, who is stated to be driving the scooter was at fault, there was no reason or occasion for the complainant to have deposed in favour of the accused-respondent. 17. The learned Trial Magistrate has taken great pain to discuss the oral and documentary evidence and it is only thereafter he recorded finding of the acquittal on the basis of the material placed on record, which cannot be said to be unfounded or unsustainable much less perverse. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.