Criminal negligence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and mere occurrence of an accident does not presume rashness or negligence.

1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment dated 14-1-04 passed in appeal whereby the judgment of conviction dated 20-3-02 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti in criminal case No. 420/95 convicting the appellant under S.304 - A of IPC has been affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Courts below have recorded a finding of guilt only on the basis of presumption without there being any evidence led by the prosecution that the incident was a result of rash and negligent act on the part of the appellant. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that all the witness of the prosecution have stated that the vehicle was driven slowly by the applicant and it was unfortunate incident in which Raju Bareth, a young boy of eight years moving along the road was hit by the vehicle. He submits that the two established circumstances that the vehicle was driven slowly and the deceased was a child barely aged eight years, go against the case of the prosecution and render improbable that the accident was a result of rash and negligent act of the applicant.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment passed by the Courts below and submits that the applicant was driving a truck and having seen a child of eight years, reasonable degree of caution and care required the applicant to drive the vehicle in such a manner as to save the child but the fact that the child was crushed by the truck itself is a proof of rash and negligent act on the part of the applicant, resulting in death of a young child of eight years.

4. The applicant has been convicted of commission of offence 304 - A, IPC which being relevant is extracted hereinbelow -
'304 - A ' Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.'

5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that in order to sustain conviction for commission of offence under S.304 - A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove following ingredients -
a) That there was a death of the person in question;
b) That the accused caused such death;
c) That such act of the accused was rash and negligent and it did not amount to culpable homicide.
At this juncture, it would be apposite to recapitulate principles applicable in the matter of appreciation of evidence before accused is held guilty of rash and negligent act.

6. In the case of Smt. Manju Baradia v. State of Chhattisgarh , 2001 (2) CGLJ 154 : (2001 CriLJ 3762 (Chh), this Court relying upon various judgments of the Supreme Court held
18. In the matter of Bhalchandra and Another v. The State of Maharashtra , AIR 1968 SC 1319 , it has been observed as under -
'The criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.'
20. In the matter of Mrs. Shakila Khader etc. v. Nausher Gama and Another , AIR 1975 SC 1324 , the Supreme Court has observed as under -
'The main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed but the width of the road, the density of the traffic and the attempt, as in this case, to overtake the other vehicles resulting in going to the wrong side of the road and being responsible for the accident. Even if the accident took plac