The judgment underscores the presumption of innocence, the requirement for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb an acquittal, and the burden of proof resting on the prosecution.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 27 th January 2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Miraj, acquitting respondent (accused) of offences punishable under Section 279 (Rash driving or riding on a public way), Section 304-A (Causing death by negligence), Section 338 (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 184 (Driving dangerously) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. It is prosecutions case that accused on 23 rd March 1999, at about 11.30 a.m., was driving a bus on Miraj to Mhaisal road. Near Malati Tapovan, he collided against a truck which was being driven by PW-3. In the collision, one person died and three others were injured. Deceased was the cleaner of the bus and the injured included PW-1 and PW-2. According to prosecution, accused was driving his bus rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and thereby caused death not amounting to murder or culpable homicide.

3. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 has culled out the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgment read as under:

72. The following principles emerge from the cases above:

1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court''s conclusion with respect to both facts and law.

2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court''s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court''s decision. This is especially true when a witness'' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.

73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court''s acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court''s acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court''s decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court''s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;

ii) The trial court''s decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court''s judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court''s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.

The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 730 has held that unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are lik