The acquittal of an accused stands if the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence and limiting appellate interference unless findings are perverse.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2015, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, North District, Delhi has acquitted the respondent/accused from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 279/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. Learned APP for the State submits that the impugned judgment is erroneous and the findings are perverse. He contends that the learned trial court has committed a grave error while acquitting the respondent. According to him, the evidence available on record has been ignored and the facts and the legal position have not been appreciated in the right perspective. He therefore, submits that in view of the fact that the accused admits that he was driving the vehicle at the given place and time and was apprehended at the spot, there was no reason for the trial court not to believe that the accused has committed the crime in question. He further states that the offending vehicle was seized from the possession of the respondent which further reinforces complicity of the accused.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the prayer and according to him the impugned judgement of acquittal is strictly in accordance with law. While taking this court through the evidence of various prosecution witnesses, he emphasized that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, no interference is called for.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.04.2001 at about 11:20 AM at Badli Chowk near Senior Secondary School, Delhi, the accused was driving Tata Tempo DL 1L C9324, and caused the death of one Ms.Maya Devi not amounting to culpable homicide and has caused grievous injuries to one Shyamu. According to the prosecution, the respondent was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently endangering human life and personal safety of others and therefore, he committed offence punishable under Sections 279/338/304A of the IPC.

6. The police after registration of the FIR No.275/2001 carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondent. After framing of the charges the respondent/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined four witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating material was put to the respondent and he was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He pleaded his innocence but did not lead any evidence.

8. Paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment shows that PW-4, namely, Shyamu was the injured witness. In his cross-examination, the said witness stated that he did not give any statement to the police and his signatures were obtained on a blank paper. According to him, he saw the accused for the first time in court. He denied that he had witnessed the incident. He was re-examined by the learned APP for the State. He stood by his version given in the cross-examination to the defence counsel.

9. Another important witness namely, Mahesh Kumar (PW-1), who happens to be the son of the deceased mother, was also examined by the prosecution to prove its case. He stated that the deceased mother used to pick PW-1's son during 11 AM - 12 Noon and on the date of the incident, he was 20-25 paces behind his mother. According to him, when the incident took place, he heard shouting from the public regarding the incident and when he rushed to the spo