The prosecution must provide specific and cogent evidence to prove that the accused drove the vehicle rashly and negligently to establish the offence of endangering the lives of others.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Leave to Appeal u/s 378 (i) and (iii) Cr. P. C. has been directed against the judgment dated 20. 3. 1987 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dungala in Case no. 33/80 whereby he has acquitted the accused for the alleged commission of offences u/ss. 304-A and 337 IPC.

( 2 ) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 23. 2. 1980 Shri laxman Singh reported to the Police Station, Dungala that in the morning he heard some noise in his village that a truck has over-turned near Heera-Nada and some labourers sitting in the truck bearing No. R. S. Y. 500 got injuries and a girl namely Narayani, aged about 15 years has also died as her head squeezed under the truck. He has also reported that the said truck was being driven by Girdhari Singh.

( 3 ) ON this report, First Information Report was lodged and investigation commenced. The respondent-driver Girdhari Singh was arrested. The statements of 16 witnesses including the injured who were travelling in the truck were recorded. The challan was presented before the trial Court. The accused pleaded not guilt and was put to trial.

( 4 ) THE prosecution examined 16 witnesses before the Court, out of which P. W. 6 Bhagwana and P. W. 17 Khumani are the injured witnesses travelling in the truck. On appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted the accused observing that no case for endangering the life of others by rash and negligent act of driving by the accused is made out.

( 5 ) THE appellant has challenged the judgment under appeal on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly as the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of the court on the statements of the witnesses led by the prosecution. On their perusal, it is seen that the witnesses, who were travelling in the truck have not stated that the accident has been caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the accused. It has been stated by some of the prosecution witnesses that the truck was being driven by the driver in high speed. No witness has stated as to what was the speed at the time of accident. Unless, there is a cogent and specific evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the vehicle was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently, conviction cannot be recorded. The truck might have been driven by the driver-respondent in high speed but, not rashly and negligently. To drive the vehicle at high speed is itself rash driving but no witness has stated that truck was being driven by the driver in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution therefore has not been able to make out that the accused by driving the truck rashly and negligently endangered the life of the passangers. The appeal therefore being devoid of merit is dismissed.