Negligence requires clear evidence; mere high-speed driving does not equate to rash driving, especially when opposing vehicle lacks proper signaling.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. The respondent is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.27 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal of Rajkot District. He was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304, 304(A) and 337 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Sections 177 , 184 and 134 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . Eventually, he was acquitted of the said offences as per the judgment rendered by the trial court on 30/11/2012.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

3. Concise statement of facts relating to the prosecution case is as follows:

3.1. The accused is a driver by profession. He was working as a driver of an auto-rickshaw bearing registration no.GJ-23- T-3504. The persons who were travelled in the said auto- rickshaw are all labourers and they have been travelling in the said auto-rickshaw for the last one year prior to the date of the accident to attend their labour work from their respective villages. While so, on 07/01/2011, after completion of the labour work, about seven persons were travelling in the said auto-rickshaw to reach their home. The accused was the driver of the said auto-rickshaw at that time. When the said auto-rickshaw was travelling on a highway road, at about 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the night time, the auto-rickshaw dashed against the tractor-cum-trolley which was parked and stationed on the said highway road during the said night time. The auto-rickshaw turned turtle after dashing the said tractor- cum-trolley. The passengers who were travelling in the said auto-rickshaw as well as the accused who is the driver of the said auto-rickshaw sustained injuries in the said incident. Two persons who were travelling in the said auto-rickshaw died on account of the injuries sustained by them in the said accident. Other persons sustained only simple injuries along with the accused.

3.2. Postmortem was held over the dead body of the two deceased persons. It was opined that they died on account of injuries sustained by them in the said accident.

4. PW-3 who is one of the passengers in the said auto- rickshaw lodged report with the police. The said report was registered as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304, 304(A), 337 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 177 , 184 and 134 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . The case was investigated. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

5. As the offence under Section 304 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the committal court has committed the said case to the sessions division for trial. Thereafter it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal of Rajkot District for trial. The trial court framed charges under Sections 279 , 304 and 337 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 177 , 184 and 134 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT against the accused. The accused denied to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-10 witnesses and got marked seven exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.

7. After completion of the trial, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the learned trial court found the accused not guilty for the charges levelled against him and acquitted him of the said charges.

8. As noticed supra, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present