the bus. It is rather improbable to accept that the accused could have been rash or negligent while reversing the bus. The accused was required to watch the rear mirror to keep an eye on the traffic moving in his lane and also to ensure that he remained in the lane, while reversing the bus and also to ensure that he reached the place where the deceased and PW-1 were searching for the mobile handset. Since it was dark, the accused could not have managed it all by himself. There must have been many others who guided him and due to a misjudgment, he could have dashed against the deceased, or the deceased himself came under the wheels. If the deceased and PW-1 had gone in search of the mobile, even assuming that to be true, was it not possible for the deceased of PW-1 to know or see the bus being reversed by the accused. Therefore, the case made out by the prosecution is doubtful. The evidence of PW-4 cannot be counted as he was not an eye witness to the accident, but he was traveling in the bus and did not alight the bus and did not witness the accident happen. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all doubt. The trial court and the appellate court, highly relied upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 to return the finding of
