The appellate court should not interfere with acquittal unless the judgment suffers patent perversity or misreads material evidence.

The applicant/appellant (complainant before the learned Trial Court) has filed the present application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Dharamshala (learned Trial Court), vide which, the complaint filed by the applicant/appellant was dismissed and the accused was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). (Parties shallhereinafter 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 tHo the present application are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC. It was asserted that Gurcharan (since deceased), husband of the complainant, was going towards PNB Yol on 02.11.2011 at about 1:45 pm. Accused Aanchal Ranaut was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-35-1635 at a high speed towards Chamunda. He overtook a bus and hit Gu rcharan. Gurcharan fell and sustained injuries. The motorcycle hit the boundary wall, and the motorcyclist and the pillion rider fell. Accused-Anchal Ranaut sustained grievous injuries. The incident was witnessed by Pradeep Chand and HC Rajinder. Gurcharan, Aanchal Ranaut, and his friends were taken to the hospital, where Gurcharan succumbed to his injuries, and the accused, Anchal Ranaut, was referred to the PGI. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused-Anchal Ranaut. The police filed a false FIR, mentioning that the accident occurred with a jeep. A false story was propounded to save accused-Anchal Ranaut, therefore, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court to take action against the accused.

3. Learned Trial Court summoned the accusHed and put the notice of accusation to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant exramined 08 witnesses to prove her case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was driving the motorcycle bearing registratiohn No. HP-35-1635 and Vikas Kumar was sitting as a pilliogn rider. He admitted that the motorcycle had hit the boundary iwall, but claimed that it happened after hitting the jeep. He admitted that he, his pillion rider, and Gurcharan were taken to the hospital. He admitted that the FIR was registered by the police. The statement of Constable Sachin Kumar was recorded in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the version of the complainant that accused Anchal was driving the motorcycle at a high speed was made doubtful by the statement of Sanjay Guleria (CW2), who had admitted in his earlier statement (Ext. DX1) that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. Pratap Chand (CW3) supported the complainant’s case. He was known to the deceased person. Vinod Kumar (CW5), Suresh Kumar (CW6) and Amit Kumar (CW7) stated that they had not seen the accident. In these circumstances, the complainant’s version that the accident occurred with the motorcycle was not established by the eyewitnesses' testimonies. The motorcycle was subjected to chemical examination, and nuo blood was detected on it. The Medical OfÏcer also admitted othat injuries were possible if a light motor vehicle hit a persCon. Therefore, the complainant’s case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt, which was granted