ORDER

This is an application for leave to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, against the order dated 27.01.2022 passed by JMFC, Depalpur, District-

Indore in RCT Case No.100642/2015, whereby the non-

applicant/accused has been acquitted under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per the prosecution case, on the report of Chowkidar – Dharmendra, an FIR was registered that the bus bearing registration No.MP13P-0952 was being driven rashly and negligently dashed a Maruti Suzuki Car bearing registration No.MP09C-6677 and the car was badly damaged. It was stated that three persons were sitting in the Car and they died on the spot itself. On the said report, Crime No.199/2015 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter the investigation was carried out and the witnesses have been examined before the trial Court who have not supported the prosecution case. The complainant Chowkidar – Dharmendra (PW/1) turned hostile and has stated that he has not seen the accident and Kalyan Singh (PW/3) the eye-witness has also stated the same version i.e. he has not seen the incident and he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He states that he reached the sport when the accident has already taken place. Dr. Chandrakala Pancholi (PW/2) who has conducted the autopsy of the deceased has stated that they died because of the injuries sustained by them in the accident. The prosecution could not prove that the non-applicant/accused was driving the alleged vehicle which was involved in the commission of offence which was driven rashly and negligently but the trial Court after appreciation of evidence has held that the prosecution has utterly proved to establish that the vehicle was being driven by the non-applicant/accused rashly and negligently and therefore acquitted the non-applicant from the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the statements of Dharmendra (PW/1) and Kalyan Singh (PW/3) who are the eye-witnesses of the said accident have not supported the prosecution case and both of them have stated that they had not seen the incident of rash and negligent driving of accused/driver and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is to note here that in an appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. K. Narsimhachary reported in (2005) 8 SCC 364 said that as per well settled principle, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the lower Court; it can only be interpreted where the material on record leads to sole inescapable conclusion of the guilt of accused. In the case of T.

Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle relying upon said judgment and by interfering in appeal the judgment of the High Court was set aside restoring the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused In the case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K.

Surenderan, (008) 1 SCC 258 , the Apex Court has observed that in case two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not reverse the judgment of acquittal only because the another view may be possibly taken.

The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of acquittal by the court of law, the court has to be very cautious in interfering in an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The relevant paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment of Mahavir Singh (supra) quoted as under:-

"11. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length and perused the material available on record. Now it is imperative to look into the scope of interference by the appellate Court in an appeal against acquitt