Short Note : Briefly stated, the prosecution case at the trial was that on 4-10-72 at about 7.30 A. M., while PW 1 Ramchandra PW 3 Bhanwarlal and one Ghisalal were proceeding on one bicycle in Neemuch Cantt. on the main road, a truck, driven by the applicant, came from behind and dashed against the bicycle due to which they fell down and were injured. A report Ex. P-l about the incident was lodged the same day at the police station. The injured persons were examined by Dr. H. N. Gupta, who has proved their injuries. The applicant was arrested and a spot map was prepared. On these facts, the applicant was prosecuted which, on trial, resulted in his conviction. On an appeal being filed, by him, it was dismissed. Hence this revision. 2. The defence of the applicant at the trial was of denial as, according to him, the balance of the bicycle, pedalled by Bhanwarlal PW 3, might have been lost as three persons were ridden thereon and, while the truck was overtaking the bicycle, it is quite likely, that the bicycle might have dashed against the rear portion of the truck due to which they fell down and were injured. But this defence was negatived by both the lower Courts. 3. Held: The only eye-witnesses to the incident are Ramchandra PW I and Bhanwarlal PW 3 who were travelling on one bicycle along with Ghisalal, who has not been examined in this case. PW I Ramchandra has deposed that at the time of the accident, Bhanwarlal was pedalling the bicycle, he himself was sitting on the bar near the handle and Ghisalal was sitting on the carrier. at the back, that the truck driven by the applicant came from behind and dashed against the bicycle due to which they all fell down and Ghisalal was thrown by the impact under the truck which passed over him and due to the injuries, all of them became unconscious immediately. 4. Similar is the statement of Bhanwarlal, who has stated that the truck dashed against the rear portion of the bicycle due to which its rear mud guard was damaged. 4. Similar is the statement of Bhanwarlal, who has stated that the truck dashed against the rear portion of the bicycle due to which its rear mud guard was damaged. None of these two witnesses have stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the applicant or that he was driving it at a very excessive speed, nor any of them have deposed that despite there being no traffic on the road, the applicant drove his truck so close to their bicycle that it dashed against the bicycle. As against this. PW 4 Lalluprasad, an alleged eye-witness, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, has deposed that the truck dashed against the handle of the bicycle. 5. A person driving a vehicle owes a duty to control the same. He owes a duty to the members of the public to keep a look out on the road. It is his duty to drive the vehicle at a speed which will not imperil the safety of others using the road. In order to impose the criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that the accident was entirely or at least mainly due to rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. Merely because there is an accident, will not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was at fault and responsible for the accident. The immediate cause of the accident should be rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. In cases of negligence, the party performs not an act to which he is obliged. He breaks a positive duty. In case of rashness, the party does an act from which he is bound to forbear. He breaks a negative duty. There is a distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. Criminal negligence is the gross or 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 having regard to all the circumstances. 6. Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would be doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would also do. 6. Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would be doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would also do. A culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precaution to prevent their happening. The immutability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence in acting without the callousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances' which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and, if he had, he would have the consciousness. 7. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly indicates that the accident occurred in the morning time when there was sufficient light. The truck-driver-applicant was proceeding with his truck in the same direction in which the cyclist was proceeding and, obviously, must be looking ahead. The truck-driver, who followed him, must have notice that a cyclist, riding on his bicycle and carrying two more persons thereon was going ahead of his truck on a public road which was sufficiently wide and had almost no traffic. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the applicant to be alert and more careful while driving his truck at the time of overtaking the bicycle, he being in a better position to judge the situation and it should not have been at all difficult for him to pass the cyclist safely without causing any accident, which he has failed to do, and the applicant is rightly held to be responsible for the accident by the lower Courts. 8. The applicant, in his statement, has not in any way explained as to how the accident occurred. The spot-map also indicates that it must have been the truck-driver, that is, the applicant, who was at fault. When three persons were riding on one bicycle, naturally its speed must have been moderate. The medical evidence has clearly proved that due to the accident, all these three persons riding on the bicycle have received injuries resulting in fractures which only goes to show that they must have been thrown on the ground very violently due to the dashing of the truck with the bicycle, though from the rear side. The medical evidence has clearly proved that due to the accident, all these three persons riding on the bicycle have received injuries resulting in fractures which only goes to show that they must have been thrown on the ground very violently due to the dashing of the truck with the bicycle, though from the rear side. If, as argued by learned counsel for the applicant, the person driving the bicycle had lost his balance due to which all the three sitting thereon fell down, then each one of them would not have received such grievous injuries, because of the slow movement of the cycle. 9. It may also be noted in the present case that all the three persons riding on the bicycle have received grievous injuries which fact also lends support to the prosecution case against the applicant. It is also not in dispute that the cyclist was going by the left side of the road which was his correct side and, after the accident, they fell down on the same side which shows that they were not at fault. 10. Both the lower Courts have considered the evidence in detail and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case and the circumstances in which the accident occurred while arriving at the conclusion which, in my opinion, cannot be said to be unreasonable or improper and no interference therewith is called for. Revision dismissed.