The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the scope of interference in cases of appeal against acquittal is limited.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the State seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and order dated 31.12.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 2201/2017 acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.01.2017 at 20.35, near Mukam-Nawab Garage, respondent/accused driving his car bearing registration No. CG-04-LH-0690 in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-DK-8578 of the victim/injured Altaf Khan, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. Upon complaint made to the police station, FIR bearing Crime No. 50/2017 was registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC against the respondent/accused. Victim/injured Altaf Khan (PW/2) and was medically examined by Dr. Rajesh Patel (PW/4) who gave his report (Ex. P/4) noticing deformity of right hip with swelling and superficial abrasion on right thigh with swelling. The Doctor has opined that the injury on right hip was grievous in nature. After fling of the charge sheet, the trial Judge framed the charges against accused/respondent under Sections 279 and 338 IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution has examined 05 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has acquitted the accused/respondent as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondent even when there is ample evidence against him. He also submits that the prosecution has proved its case by reliable witnesses.

6. Heard learned State counsel and perused the material available on record.

7. During trial, the injured Altaf Khan PW/2 has denied to recognize the respondent/accused and not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he had seen the number of the offending vehicle, but on the other hand, he admitted that he had not seen the driver of the offending vehicle. Another witness namely Imran Khan (PW/3) has also stated that he had not seen the number of offending vehicle. A suggestion that he is deposing to protect the respondent/accused, has been denied.

8. Considering the statements of injured Altaf Khan (PW/2) and eye-witness Imran Khan (PW/3), where they have not supported the prosecution case, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt and thus acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges levelled against him. The learned Court below has meticulously examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded its finding of acquittal. I find no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondent particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court.

9. Accordingly, the CRM