The appellate court reinforced the principle that an acquittal must be disturbed only when the trial court's judgment is perverse or fundamentally misreads evidence.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.5.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). (Parties shall hereinafter 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 to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 427 of the IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that the informant, Balbir Singh (PW2), was driving his Maruti car bearing registration No. HP-24A-2617 on 02.6.2009. He reached Amarpu r at 4.15 PM. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP- 23B-1482 came to the spot at high speed towards the wrong side. The motorcycle hit the car. The motorcyclist and pillion rider sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital, and an intimation was given to the police. An entry No. 20 (Ex.PW11/B) was recorded. SI Sukhdev (PW10) and HC Thilu Ram visited the spot to verify the correctness of the information. Balbir Singh (PW2) made a statement (Ex.PW2/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW10/A) was registered. SI Sukhdev prepared the site plan (Ex.PW10/C). He seized the Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-24A-2617 and motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-1482, along with documents vide seizure memos (Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW3/A). He took the photographs of the spot (Ex.PW10/D1 to Ex.PW10/D5), whose negatives are Ex.PW10/D6 to Ex.PW10/D10. He filed an application for the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Rishi Tandon (PW1) examined accused Budhi Ram and injured Sandeep Kumar (PW5) and found that they had sustained simple injuries which couldu have been caused within six hours of examination. Heo issued MLCs (Ex.PW1/B & Ex.PW1/F). HHC Dev Raj (PW6)C examined the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in them which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW6/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of Hthe investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 427 of IPC and Section 196 of MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. Dr. Rishi Tandon (PW1) conducted the medical examination of the injured. Balbir Singh (PW2), Kushal Kumar (PW3), Sukhdev (PW4) and Sandeep Kumar (PW5) are the eyewitnesses. HHC Dev Raj (PW6) examined the vehicles. HHC Ravi Kumar (PW7) is the witness to Sapurdari. Sunil Kumar (PW8) and Moti Ram (PW9) are the witnesses to the recovery. Inspector Sukh Dev (PW10) conducted tuhe investigation. Jogesh Kumar (PW11) proved the entryo in the daily diary.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of C r.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He claimed that he was innocent. He stated that he wanted to lead evidence in defence; however, he subsequently made a statement that he did not want to lead any defence evidence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that Sandeep K