In order to prove rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must provide cogent and convincing evidence of high speed, skid marks, and a long distance traveled after impact.

Bhawani Singh, J.—By this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge ([), Kangra Division, in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1985, decided on 7-1-1987 thereby confirming the decision of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, in Criminal Case No. 114-11/8 U decided on 29-12-1984. By this decision, the petitioner has been convicted under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs 2,000 and in default of the payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine, on realisation, has been ordered to be paid to the parents of the deceased.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on September

20. 1982, the petitioner was driving truck No. HPS-4955 from Nagrota to Palampur, a State Highway. He crushed to death Rakesh Kumar (6) near Darang at about 12.15 p. m. while the child was standing on the left side of the road. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was the outcome of the same. The parents of the child and some other persons raised noise and the petitioner stopped the vehicle at a distance of 50 feet from the place of accident. The matter was reported to the police. Thereafter the matter was investigated and ultimately a case under section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the petitioner. The trial ended in the aforesaid conviction of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the appellate court.

3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Further, the petitioner denied that the accident had taken place on account of his rash and negligent driving. In fact, the child got frightened on the blowing of the horn with the result that it attempted to cross the road and thus came under the rear tyres of the truck which resulted to the mishap. Both the courts came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. I proceed to look into the evidence adduced by the prosecution as the question of ones being rash or negligent in the driving of a vehicle is dependant on evidence-that being purely a question of fact.

4. The evidence of Doctor R. K. Bajaj (PW 1) is not very much relevant because there is no dispute as to the accident and death of the child due to the same.

5. Shri Vishwas Kumar (PW 2) is a motor Mechanic attached with the police department. He states that the vehicle was examined by him and the same was mechanically fit and he gave his report (Ex. PC).

6. Shri Ghanshyam (PW 7) is the father of the deceased. He states that on 20-9-1982 at about 2 p.m. he was coming back from Darang along-with his wife Shrimati Chander Kanta (PW 8) and the child. They bad reached the main road from some village passage and found that Truck No. HPS-4955 came from Nagrota side. It was being driven in a high speed. At that time the deceased was standing on the left side of the road. The truck had run over the child and the child was completely crushed to death under the tyres of the truck. At that place, the road was 16 feet wide and two vehicles could pass easily. He further stated that he and his wife had made noise and the truck driver had stopped the truck at a distance of45 feet from the place of accident. In cross-examination, he states that the deceased had reached the edge of the pucca road. He admits the existence of a curve but denies that the same is at a distance of 15 yards from the place of accident. According to him, the curve was at a distance of 100 yards. He further denies that the petitioner had blown horn at the curve and that the child got frightened due to the horn and ran across the road. He further states that the child came under the front tyres and denies that the petitioner tried to save the child but could not do so despite efforts.

7. Shrimati Chander Kanta (PW 8) supports her husband. She also states th