The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Criminal Appeal No.563 of 2003 Judgment: This appeal by the State under Section 378 (3) & (1) Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment, dated 8th August, 2001, in C.C.No.362 of 1999 on the file of the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the respondent-accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304 (A) and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short ‘IPC’) and was acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 28th April, 1999, P.W.6 and one Satish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) were proceeding on a scooter driven by P.W.6 and when they reached Hanuman Temple near Saidabad, a lorry driven by the respondent-accused came from behind and took extreme left, due to which, P.W.6 and the deceased fell under the rear wheels of the lorry and were dragged to some distance. Consequently, P.W.6 sustained severe injuries and deceased, who was the pillion rider, died on the spot. On the complaint given by P.W.1, who is an eyewitness, the Police registered a case in Crime No.78 of 1999 under Section 304 (A) IPC. P.W.10-Sub-Inspector of Police observed the scene of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Pancha and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.11-Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the deadbody of the deeased, opined that the deceased died as a result of the multiple injuries sustained by him in the said accident. P.W.8-Motor Vehicles Inspector, who inspected the offending lorry, opined that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects of the lorry. After completion of investigation, P.W.10-Sub- Inspector of Police filed charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC, he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court has not placed reliance on the evidence of eyewitnesses-PWs.1 to 4 and 6 on the ground that their evidence did not disclose the rash or negligent driving on the part of the accused, who was the driver of the lorry, and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present Appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is, whether the Prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offences punishable under Sections 304 (A) and 338 IPC. 7. The learned Counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that P.Ws.1 to 4, who are the eye witnesses to the incident, have categorically stated that the lorry came from behind the deceased and dashed the scooter of P.W.6 though it was going on the extreme left side of the road and therefore, dashing in those circumstances by itself is a rash or negligent act and hence, she prays to set aside the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court cannot disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 9. The death of the deceased and place of the accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that at the time of accident, P.W.6 and the deceased were proceeding on a scooter on the left side of the road and that they were observing the rules of the road. When a vehicle dashes another vehicle from behind although it was going on the left side of the road, then it certainly amounts to rash or negligent act. High speed is not criterion to determine rash or negligent act but not taking proper and reasonable care that should be taken while driving the vehicle at a particular place would amount to rashness or negligence. 10. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 6 would go to show that the offending lorry did not dash the scooter from behind. However, the evidence would go to show that an RTC bus was coming in the opposite direction of the lorry and therefore, the driver of the lorry swerved the lorry to the left side of the road. If the lorry dashed the scooter from behind, then certainly it can be an act of negligence, but it is not a case of direct hit of scooter by the lorry. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 6 would clearly go to show that the scooter came into contact with the rear portion of the lorry, as a result thereof, the deceased and PW.6 fell under the rear wheel of the lorry. Under those circumstances, negligence or rashness cannot be attributed to the accused, who was the driver of the lorry. Perhaps that is the reason why, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. Therefore, the order of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse or not based upon the admissible evidence available on record. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 08-08- 2001, in C.C.No.362 of 1999, on the file of the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. _____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J) 19th October, 2009 lur