ORDER

The present application is leave to appeal u/S.378(4) of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.06.2022 passed by JMFC,Agar in RCT Case No.813/2014 whereby the learned JMFC acquitted the respondent No.1 has been acquitted for offence under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and under section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the respondent Nos.2

& 3 were acquitted for the offence under section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act registered as crime No. 114/2014 at P.S. Barod, district Agar. 2. The prosecution case is that on 1.6.2014 respondent No.1 Mangu Singh has parked unattended a crane bearing registration NO. RJ 30 E 1174 on Agar Barod Road in careless manner without any indication on it, due to which in the night a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MP13 BA 2101 had collided in the crane from behind and three persons sitting in it namely Rajendra Singh, Dheeraj Singh and Shravan Singh sustained several injuries. Thereafter, an offence was registered under section 297, 337 and 338 of IPC against the respondents. During the treatment injured Rajendra died, thus section 304 A IPC was added in the offence. After completing investigation, challan was filed before the trial court. Learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 6.6.2022 acquitted the respondents from the aforementioned sections. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Counsel for the appellant submits that trial court has erred while not appreciating the evidence of Shravan Singh (PW-2) who is eye witness of the incident and has stated that Crane was parked on the road and there was no radium or stone or any mark nearby the crane. Likewise the evidence of Dheeraj Singh (PW-4) and Sheikh Farman (PW-5) who have stated that crane was parked on the road, has also not been appreciated. Thus, trial court has erred while acquitting the accused persons.

4. Upon perusal of record and testimony of witnesses Shravan Singh (PW-2), Dheeraj Singh (PW-4) and Sheikh Farman (PW-5) , it transpires that they have not stated that vehicle in question i.e. crane was parked on the road. Apart from that the Investigating Officer, Bhawarsingh (PW-10) in page 2 has clearly stated that when he went to the spot, a crane was parked on its side.

From the spot map (Ex.P/1) also it is evident that vehicle was parked on left side. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the trial court as the prosecution could not establish that vehicle was negligently parked on the road, on account of which the accident took place.

5. The scope of interference against an order of acquittal is very limited. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is herebydismissed