The central legal point established in the judgment is that to establish criminal liability under IPC Sections 279 and 304-A, the prosecution must prove gross and culpable negligence, considering factors such as speed, traffic conditions, and the nature of the accident.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. By way of the present appeal, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, impugnes the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 22.4.1988, acquitting the represent of the charges under Sections 279/304-A of IPC. A factual narrative of the case would be appropriate.

2. On 28.2.1986, at about 2.15 PM, Ravinder Kaur D/o Amrik Singh, PW-1, lodged a report Ex. PA with the police. She and her friend Rupinder Kaur (the deceased) were returning from college, riding separate bicycles. Rupinder Kaur was a little ahead. When they approached the traffic round about of Sectors 26/27/7/19, a speeding truck came from behind and struck Rupinder Kaurs cycle causing her to fall down. She was run over by rear wheel of the truck. The truck driver fled from the scene of the accident but the complainant was able to note down the number of the truck. A police van arrived immediately. The complainant narrated the entire occurrence. The truck was apprehended and the driver brought to the place of occurrence. Rupinder Kaur was rushed to the hospital, where she was declared dead. The respondent was charged with offences under Sections 279/304-A of IPC and upon pleading not guilty of the offences, claimed trial.

3. The prosecution led its evidence in the shape of the statement of Ravinder Kaur, eye witness, Jaspal Singh Head Constable PW-2 and Dr. S.K. Garg, PW-3, who conducted the postmortem. The postmortem report was exhibited as Ex. PB, the site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PE, recovery memos of cycle and the truck Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B and photographs Ex. PI to PO. After conclusion of the evidence, the respondents statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. After hearing arguments addressed by both the parties, the trial Court upon a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution acquitted the respondent, hence the present appeal filed by the U.T. Chandigarh.

4. Counsel for the appellant contends that the findings returned by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent, are factually incorrect, based upon an erroneous appreciation of evidence and law and have thus, resulted in a miscarriage of justice, thus, warranting the setting aside of the judgment. It is further argued that the reasons set forth by the trial Court for acquitting the respondent are inherently unsound and legally unsustainable. An appraisal of the evidence, adduced by the prosecution could lead to only one conclusion, namely; the truck was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on two grounds firstly that PW-1 did not depose that the truck was being in a rash and negligent manner and secondly a truck could not be driven at a high speed at the place of accident.

5. It is further contended that the learned trial Court, while appraising the evidence lost sight of a crucial aspect of the case, namely; that the truck came from behind, at a very high speed and struck Rupinder Kaur, as a result whereof, she was run over by the rear wheel resulting in her death. Ravinder Kaur PW-1 also deposed that when truck struck the cycle, the cleaner of the truck pushed the deceaseds head, whereupon she fell down, causing the rear wheel of the truck to run over the deceased.

6. It is further argued, by counsel for the appellant that a perusal of the statement, of the sole eye witness, to the effect that the truck was being driven at a very high speed, at a busy round about, the truck struck the cycle and ran over the deceased, are sufficient to conclude the commission of a rash and negligent act, sufficient to cause death and, therefore, acquittal of the respondent on the ground that the eye witness had not deposed that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner is an irrational and perverse appreciation of the evidence and an erroneous application of law.

7. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the learned trial Court, rightly acq