The prosecution must prove the identity of the accused as the driver and establish rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt in motor vehicle accident cases.

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The State is aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. on 06.10.2007 whereby he acquitted the respondent under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC and Section 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.3.2006, the complainant Dilli Devi, Leela Devi, Bantu Devi, Dearu Ram, Rounie and Chet Ram while travelling in vehicle No. HP-33T-9825 were going to Patalikuhal from place Pangan. When the vehicle reached at a place near Sukhali at 1.18 p.m., then a vehicle Tata Sumo came from the opposite side and while giving pass to the said vehicle, the driver of the vehicle No. HP-33T-9825 could not judge the side as a result of which the same fell down. The occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries and one of them succumbed to the same. It was on the basis of the statement of Dilli Devi that an FIR came to be registered against the respondent. After completion of investigation, the respondent was tried for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and Section 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The prosecution examined six witnesses and thereafter the statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence was that of total denial. He also tendered in evidence copy of order dated 25.4.2007 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu and statements Ex.DB, DC and memo of costs Ex.DD.

4. It is vehemently argued by learned Additional Advocate General that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are perverse inasmuch as it has failed to appreciate the truthful and trustworthy deposition of PW-2 Banto Devi and PW-6 Rajesh both of whom have been injured in the occurrence. That apart, the prosecution case has further been proved by PW-1 Dilli Devi whose statement has been misconstrued and mis-appreciated by the learned Court below.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would argue that the findings recorded by the learned Court below being strictly in consonance with the evidence that has come on record, no exception to the same can be taken.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

6. At the outset, it would be necessary to deal with the ambit and scope of the powers of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal and the law on the subject has been succinctly dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghurey Lal vs. State of U.P. 2008 (10) SCC 450, wherein after taking into consideration all the previous precedence summed up the legal position as under:-

43. The earliest case that dealt with the controversy in issue was Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227. In this case, the ambit and scope of the powers of the appellate court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been aptly elucidated by the Privy Council. Lord Russell writing the judgment has observed as under: (at p. 230):

“...the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (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.…”

The law succinctly crystallized in this case has been consistently followed by this Court. On proper analysis of the ratio and findings of this case, it is revealed that the findings of the trial court are based on the fundamental principles of the criminal jurisprudence. Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused further gets reinforced and strengthened by the acquittal of the trial court. The appellate court undoubtedly has wide powers o