JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Section 1. for three months under each of the sections the sentences to run con currently. 2. The occurrence took place at about 4 p.m. on 24-5-1971 in the bazar area of Hinjli on the Aska-Berhampur road. Berhampur is to the south of Aska. If the bus moves from Aska to Berhampur it would travel from north to south. While the petrol truck was passing through the bazar area of Hinjli one ORT bus was standing on the left side of the road which is to the east. About 15 feet ahead of the bus was a Pan shop. The deceased boy?s house is on the western side. He had to cross the road to come from his house to the Pan shop. The deceased purchased chocolate from Pan shop and while he was coming back to his house by crossing the road, the front right side bumper of the truck dashed against him. He was thrown off to a distance and despite medical aid died soon after. Prosecution case is that the driver (Petitioner) was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The defence of the Petitioner is that he was driving the truck in normal speed after blowing horn and he does not know how the truck dashed against the boy. The learned trial Court accepted the prosecution case. The learned lower appellate Court held that the Petitioner was not driving the truck rashly but he was driving it negligently. 3. Prosecution evidence is unfurled through p.ws. 2, 3 and 6 who are the eye-witnesses. All of them deposed that the truck was in a high speed and the Petitioner was not blowing the horn. It dashed against the boy on the right side of the road while he was crossing from the Pan Shop to his own house. The learned lower appellate Court after fully analysing their evidence came to the conclusion that the truck was not in a high speed. It was in normal speed and the Petitioner was blowing horn. The bazar area through which the truck passed is a crowded area. It is on this conclusion that it held that the truck was not being driven rashly. 4. The short question for consideration is whether the truck was being driven negligently. It was in normal speed and the Petitioner was blowing horn. The bazar area through which the truck passed is a crowded area. It is on this conclusion that it held that the truck was not being driven rashly. 4. The short question for consideration is whether the truck was being driven negligently. If the evidence that the truck was being taken in high speed and the horn was not being blown is not accepted, then the residue of evidence in support of the case of negligence appears to be rather meagre. In that regard certain broad features appearing in the prosecution evidence are to be kept in view. The ORT bus was in a standing position. It was standing at a distance of about 10 cubits (15 feet) from the Pan shop (see p.w. 3). The truck was moving In a normal speed. So if the boy all of a sudden comes from the Pan shop on the eastern side and crosses the road to the western side it may not be easily possible for the driver to stop the truck by application of brake before it dashed against the boy. No positive evidence is available as to at what distance the boy could be visible to the driver of the truck. It is understandable to come to a conclusion that the truck was being driven in a rash manner if the finding would have been that it was in a high speed and the horn was not being blown. But the moment these pieces of evidence are excluded as has been done by the learned appellate Judge, then the residue of the evidence would not be sufficient to hold that the truck was being driven in a negligent manner. The onus is on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the truck was being driven in a rash or negligent manner. What is rash or negligent driving would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. This case falls within the ambit of that class of cases where the Court is not able to get a clear picture as to how the incident happened. It might be that all of a sudden the boy came in front of the truck. The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 5. This case falls within the ambit of that class of cases where the Court is not able to get a clear picture as to how the incident happened. It might be that all of a sudden the boy came in front of the truck. The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 5. In the result, the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside and the Petitioner is acquitted. The criminal revision is allowed. The Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith and his bail bond be discharged. Final Result : Allowed