Failure to establish the driver’s identity through cogent evidence warrants the acquittal of the accused.

On November 12, 2017, victims Shivam and his grandmother Radha Bai were struck by a Bolero (MP 35 CA 1708) while traveling on a motorcycle.

Radha Bai succumbed to head injuries, while Shivam sustained a fracture.

The State alleged that the respondent, Ranmat Singh, was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

Following a trial in RCT No. 710/2017, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panna, acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 279, 338, and 304A of the IPC.

The State subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal against this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution established the identity of the respondent as the driver of the offending vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the trial court's view is a "plausible view" based on the evidence

The court applied Sections 279 (rash driving), 338 (causing grievous hurt), and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code.

Procedurally, it applied Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding leave to appeal against acquittal.

It relied on the principles of appellate jurisdiction established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which dictate that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and should not be overturned if the trial court’s view is legally plausible, even if an alternative view exists.

The High Court scrutinized the testimonies of eye-witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-6. While these witnesses initially identified the respondent in their examination-in-chief, they admitted during cross-examination that they had not actually seen the driver's face due to the "dark night" and could only see three to four persons running away.

Consequently, the court found there was no "cogent and reliable evidence" naming the respondent as the driver.

Applying the standards set by the Supreme Court, the court reasoned that the trial court’s decision to grant the benefit of doubt was a plausible conclusion.

The appellate court noted it cannot interfere unless the judgment suffers from "patent perversity" or misreading of evidence, neither of which were present here.

The application for leave to appeal (I.A. No. 20213/2022) was dismissed, and consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed.

The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was upheld as it was based on a proper appreciation of evidence.