JUDGMENT : RAKESH KAINTHLA, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.04.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was accepted and he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that informant Bimla Chauhan was posted as Principal in Government High School, Chakli. She had gone to SBI Nahan to withdraw the cash on 05.09.2005. She got down at Behradwala. She was talking to her brother when the deceased Bhupesh came on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP- 18A-2709 from Khadder-Ka-Bagh. A truck bearing registration No. PB10-AZ-1012 came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the motorcycle towards the wrong side. The motorcycle was dragged for 15-20 feet. The truck crushed Bhupesh and fell into a gorge. Bhupesh died in the accident. An intimation was given to the police. The police recorded an entry in the daily diary. ASI-Ram Singh (PW8) went to the spot to verify the correctness of the entry. He recorded the statement of Bimla Chauhan (Ext. PW1/C), which was sent to the police station for the registration of the FIR through C-Tika Ram. FIR (Ext. PW8/C) was registered in the police station. ASI-Ram Singh conducted the investigation. HC-Choli Ram (PW5) took the photographs of the spot (Ext. P1 to P11, Ext. DA and DB) whose negatives are Ext P12 to Ext. P24. The inquest on the dead body was conducted and a report (Ext. PW8/A) was prepared. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr A. Chaturvedi who issued the report (Ext PB). ASI-Ram Singh prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/B). He seized the truck bearing registration bearing No. PB-10AZ-1012 vide memo (Ext. PW1/A). He also seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP18A- 2709 vide memo (Ext. PW1/B). Suresh Chand (PW6) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle and found that there was no defect in them, which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext. PW6/A and 6/B). The informant Bimla Chauhan identified the accused. PW1/A). He also seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP18A- 2709 vide memo (Ext. PW1/B). Suresh Chand (PW6) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle and found that there was no defect in them, which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext. PW6/A and 6/B). The informant Bimla Chauhan identified the accused. He was arrested and his medical examination was conducted by Dr Ajay Gupta, who issued the report (Ext PA). Statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version. Balwinder Singh (PW9) produced the documents of the vehicle bearing Registration No. PB10-AZ- 1012, which were seized vide memo (Ext. PW4/A). Jai Chand (PW3) produced the documents of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP 18A-2709, which were seized vide memo (Ext. PW3/A). After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. Bimla Chauhan (PW1) is the informant. Ishwar Chand (PW2) reached the spot after hearing the cries of the informant. Jai Chand (PW3) produced the documents of the motorcycle. Salim (PW4) is a witness to the memo (Ext. PW4/A). Choli Ram (PW5) took photographs of the spot. C-Suresh Chand (PW6) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. C. Luv Kumar (PW7) is the witness to the recovery of the documents of the motorcycle. ASI Ram Singh (PW8) conducted the investigation. Balwinder Singh (PW9) produced the documents of the truck. 5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. He stated that he was innocent and that he was falsely implicated. No defence was sought to be adduced by him. 6. The Learned Trial Court held that the statement of the informant was duly corroborated by the site plan and the photographs. Ishwar Chand (PW2) visited the spot after hearing the cries and found that the truck was being driven on the wrong side of the road. This was the proximate cause of the accident. There was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Ishwar Chand (PW2) visited the spot after hearing the cries and found that the truck was being driven on the wrong side of the road. This was the proximate cause of the accident. There was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under sections 279 & 304A of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and in default of payment of the fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 7. Being aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. Learned Sessions Judge held that the skid marks started from the left side of the road and moved towards the right side of the road. These skid marks showed that the truck was being driven towards its side. The absence of the skid marks of the left tyre of the truck can only lead to an inference that the left tyre was on the kachha portion of the road. This falsifies the version of the prosecution that the truck was being driven towards the wrong side of the road. Informant Bimla Chauhan was related to the deceased and she contradicted herself during her examination; hence, it was highly unsafe to rely upon her testimony. There was no corroboration to her testimony and the learned Trial Court erred in convicting the accused; hence, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court were set aside. 8. Being aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present appeal has been filed asserting that the learned Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused. The findings are based on surmises, conjectures and hypotheses. The evidence was appreciated in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. The reasoning of the learned First Appellate Court is manifestly unreasonable and unsustainable. The testimonies of the witnesses were discarded without assigning any cogent reasons. The findings are based on surmises, conjectures and hypotheses. The evidence was appreciated in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. The reasoning of the learned First Appellate Court is manifestly unreasonable and unsustainable. The testimonies of the witnesses were discarded without assigning any cogent reasons. Undue weightage was given to the photographs. Bimla Chauhan categorically stated that the motorcyclist was driving the motorcycle on his left side. The truck dragged the motorcycle for 15-20 feet. This statement could not be shattered in cross-examination and should have been accepted by the learned Appellate Court. The site plan corroborates the testimony of the informant. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge be set aside. 9. I have heard Ms Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and Ms Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 10. Ms Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Sessions Judge relied upon the site plan and the photographs to contradict the informant’s testimony. The testimony of the eyewitness was entitled to greater weight than the site plan and the photographs. The statement of Ishwar Chand (PW2) was ignored by the learned Sessions Judge; therefore, she prayed that the present appeal be allowed and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge be set aside. 11. Ms Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that he had properly appreciated the material on record. The testimony of Bimla Chauhan was rightly discarded because it was contrary to the site plan and the photographs of the spot. Therefore, she prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 13. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the parameters of deciding an appeal against acquittal in Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 , as under:- “Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal: 25. 13. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the parameters of deciding an appeal against acquittal in Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 , as under:- “Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal: 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 14. This position was reiterated in Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka, 2023 Online SCC 429, wherein it was held:- “15. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is to the effect that the High Court ought not to have interdicted with the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Trial Court and only in the event of the judgment of the Trial court was riddled with perversity and the view taken by the Trial Court was not a possible view, same could have been reversed by relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Murugesan V. State through the Inspector of police (2012) 10 SCC 383 whereunder it came to be held as follows: “33. The expressions “erroneous”, “wrong” and “possible” are defined in the Oxford English Dictionary in the following terms: “erroneous.— wrong; incorrect. wrong.—(1) not correct or true, mistaken. (2) unjust, dishonest, or immoral. possible.— (1) capable of existing, happening, or being achieved. (2) that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.” 34. It will be necessary for us to emphasize that a possible view denotes an opinion, which can exist or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such an opinion. (2) unjust, dishonest, or immoral. possible.— (1) capable of existing, happening, or being achieved. (2) that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.” 34. It will be necessary for us to emphasize that a possible view denotes an opinion, which can exist or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such an opinion. A view taken by a court lower in the hierarchical structure may be termed as erroneous or wrong by a superior court upon a mere disagreement. But such a conclusion of the higher court would not take the view rendered by the subordinate court outside the arena of a possible view. The correctness or otherwise of any conclusion reached by a court has to be tested on the basis of what the superior judicial authority perceives to be the correct conclusion. A possible view, on the other hand, denotes a conclusion, which can reasonably be arrived at regardless of the fact where it is agreed upon or not by the higher court. The fundamental distinction between the two situations has to be kept in mind. So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court.” 16. It need not be restated that it would be open for the High Court to re-apprise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court and in the case of the judgment of the trial court being perverse that is contrary to the evidence on record, then in such circumstances the High Court would be justified in interfering with the findings of the Trial Court and/or reversing the finding of the Trial Court. In Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 10 SCC 636 : AIR 2010 SC 589 it has been held by this Court as under: “14. We have considered the arguments advanced and heard the matter at great length. It is true, as contended by Mr Rao, that interference in an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the trial court should be rare and in exceptional circumstances. We have considered the arguments advanced and heard the matter at great length. It is true, as contended by Mr Rao, that interference in an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the trial court should be rare and in exceptional circumstances. It is, however, well settled by now that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court but only in a case when the judgment of the trial court is stated to be perverse. The word “perverse” in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean “against the weight of evidence”. We have to see accordingly as to whether the judgment of the trial court which has been found perverse by the High Court was in fact so. 17. The Appellate Court may reverse the order of acquittal in the exercise of its powers and there is no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction having been placed on the High Court in the exercise of its power as an Appellate court. No distinction can be drawn as regards the power of the High Court in dealing with an appeal, between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not place any fetter on the exercise of the power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded and to conclude that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. 18. In the case of Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 , it has been held by the Privy Council as under: But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as: 1) The views/opinion of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; 2) The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; 3) The right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; 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. 19. 19. This Court has time and again reiterated the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal and laid down the general principles in the matter of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 to the following effect: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an Appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and 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 a 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.” 15. The present appeal has to be adjudicated in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. Ishwar Chand (PW2) stated that he was working in his field on 05.09.2005 when he heard the cries of someone. He went to the spot. Bimla Chauhan was on the road. The present appeal has to be adjudicated in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. Ishwar Chand (PW2) stated that he was working in his field on 05.09.2005 when he heard the cries of someone. He went to the spot. Bimla Chauhan was on the road. He came to know that a truck bearing registration No. PB10-AZ-1012 had hit the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-18A-2709 at a high speed and towards the wrong side of the road. Trucks and motorcycles were on the spot. The truck was lying at a distance of 150 meters. He specifically stated in his cross-examination that the accident had not taken place in his presence. Bimla Chauhan narrated the incident to him and he arrived within five minutes of the accident. 17. The statement of this witness clearly shows that he is not an eyewitness to the incident. He arrived at the spot five minutes after the incident and was told about the accident by Bimla Chauhan. Therefore, he has no personal knowledge regarding the manner of the accident and no reliance can be placed on his testimony to determine the cause of the accident. 18. Bimla Chauhan supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief. However, she stated in her crossexamination that the skid marks appeared after the accident. The accident occurred at a place shown in the photograph (Ext. DA), where the road was damaged. She volunteered to say that the truck hit the motorcycle towards the wrong side and was driven towards its correct side. She stated that the road was straight at the place of the accident. She admitted that the truck went towards the right side after the motorcycle was trapped in its tyers. The truck was not on the wrong side or the left side but was being driven in a zig-zag manner. 19. It is apparent from the cross-examination of this witness that she has given a different version regarding the accident. Initially, she stated that the accident was caused on the wrong side of the road by the truck. Thereafter, she said that the truck had hit the motorcycle on the wrong side but the truck went towards its side. She again said that the truck was being driven in a zig-zag manner. She also said that the truck moved towards the right side immediately after the accident. Thereafter, she said that the truck had hit the motorcycle on the wrong side but the truck went towards its side. She again said that the truck was being driven in a zig-zag manner. She also said that the truck moved towards the right side immediately after the accident. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge rightly held that this witness had given conflicting versions regarding the accident and it was highly unsafe to rely upon her testimony. 20. The photograph (Ext. DA) shows the skid marks on the road. Learned Sessions Judge rightly pointed out that skid marks on the left tyre of the truck were not visible and some impression was visible on the soil lying towards the left side. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly drawn an inference that this means that the left tyre of the truck was on the kachha portion of the road and that is why skid marks were not visible. These skid marks moved from the left side of the road towards the right side of the road after a sharp curve. The photograph (Ext. DB) shows the dead body lying near the skid marks, which can lead to an inference that the accident had taken place, where the skid marks are visible. This is also as per the statement of the informant-Bimla Chauhan that skid marks appeared after the accident. These skid marks clearly show that the statement of Bimla Chauhan that the truck was being driven towards the wrong side of the road is not correct as the skid marks are visible towards the extreme left side of the road. 21. The site plan (Ext. PW8/B) shows the place of accident as the point ‘A’. 15 feet space is shown towards the left side of the truck and 5 feet space is shown towards the right side of the truck. ASI-Ram Singh (PW8) stated that the motorcycle got trapped in the right tyre of the truck and the truck fell along with the motorcycle into a gorge. He admitted that the truck driver had applied the brakes, which caused the skid marks. 22. Therefore, the fact that the skid marks appeared after the accident was also admitted by the Investigating Officer. This is also understandable because the tyres would stop rotating after the motorcycle got trapped in them. He admitted that the truck driver had applied the brakes, which caused the skid marks. 22. Therefore, the fact that the skid marks appeared after the accident was also admitted by the Investigating Officer. This is also understandable because the tyres would stop rotating after the motorcycle got trapped in them. The tyres will produce the skid marks of dragging in such a situation and the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that the skid marks appeared after the accident, which is also the prosecution case. 23. The place of incident is shown to be about 20 feet wide. The photograph shows the truck towards its extreme lefthand side. The fact that the accident had taken place towards the left side of the road shows that the truck driver was not driving the truck towards the wrong side. The motorcyclist on the other hand was driving the vehicle towards his right side and hit the truck towards its left side. Therefore, the proximate cause of the accident was not the negligence of the driver of the truck but the motorcyclist, who had taken the motorcycle towards the wrong side of the road. 24. There is no other eye-witness to the incident and the testimony of the informant-Bimla Devi was not corroborated by any evidence; rather the same stood contradicted by the site plan and the photographs. It is trite to say that man may lie but the circumstances do not; therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in discarding the statement of Bimla Chauhan and relying upon the photographs and the site plan. This was a reasonable view, which could be taken based on the material placed before the learned Sessions Judge. No interference is required with such a view in an appeal against the order of acquittal. 25. No other point was urged. 26. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge had rightly accepted the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the  learned Trial Court and no interference is required with the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Final Order: 27. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed