JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran camp Kota, upholding the order of the learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 3, Kota, dated January 13, 1969 .whereby he convicted the accused-petitioner under S. 304-A IPC, and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The proceedings ensued from the occurrence which took place on April 30, 1967 at 6 p.m. According to the prosecution Latur was driving a bullock cart on the road leading from Badod to Ummaidpura. Two bullock carts were going ahead of it. it is alleged that PW 1 Govinda, PW 3 Girdbari, PW 4 Kasturchand. PW 5 Bherun Lal, Ramswaroop (deceased) and Khatun (deceased) were occupants of the bullock cart at the time of the incident. When the bullock cart of Latur had reached in between Furlong 32 j 2-3213 the bus No. 1UR 1085 driven by the accused came with a great speed and dashed against the rear portion of the bullock cart, of Latur. As a result of the impact Ramswaroop and Khatun were thrown out on the right side of the Bullock cart and the other persons who were sitting in the bullock cart of Latur were thrown out towards the left of the bullock cart. Thereafter, the bus swerved towards the right and after going fora little distance stopped This swerved to the right resulted in running over of Ramswaroop and Khatun, who met instantaneous death. The first information report Ex. P. 5 of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Budhadeet at 7.30 p.m. by PW 2 Latur. PW 8 Dulichand after registering the case against the accused-petitioner under S, 304-A IPC came on the scene of the occurrence, and prepared the site-plan Ex. P. 6. The post-mortem on the dead bodies of Ramswaroop (deceased) and Khatun (deceased) was conducted by PW 6 Dr. Prakash Chander. The post-mortem reports are Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8 respectively. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused-petitioner in the Court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1. Kota, The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of their case out of whom P.W 1 to PW 5 are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, PW 8 is the investigating Officer of this case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime. Kota, The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of their case out of whom P.W 1 to PW 5 are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, PW 8 is the investigating Officer of this case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime. He also denied the driving of the vehicle at an excessive speed or with negligence. He further submitted that the bullock cart driver all of a sudden turned the cart towards the right and came on the main road, and so he swerved the vehicle towards the right with a view to avoide the accident which could not be avoided. The accused-petitioner examined one witness D.W. 1 Surendra Singh in support of his case. The trial court disbelieving the defence varsion and placing reliance on the statements of the prosecution witnesses held the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S. 304-A, IPC, and sentenced him mentioned above. The appeal filed by the accused-petitioner also failed and hence this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. S. Dave has vehemently challenged the conviction of the accused petitioner and the learned Public' Prosecutor has supported the judgement of the trial court. 3. The crucial point that merits consideration is whether or not the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that it the time of the occurrence Mohammad Ishaq was driving the bus in a rash or negligent manner or so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life and the death of Ramswaroop and Khatun was the direct results of the rash or negligent act of the accused. 4. After going through the record of the case to which my attention was drawn I cannot help observing that the investigation into the occurrence in question was not done with due diligence. Ex. P. 6 or the statement of PW 8 Dulichand do not reveal any thing on the basis of which it can be said that the tyre marks were examined with the object of finding out the approximate speed and the manner of the application of the brakes at the time of the accident. The photographs were also not taken of the position of the site soon after the unfortunate occurrence which is usually done in the case of accident. The site-plan Ex. The photographs were also not taken of the position of the site soon after the unfortunate occurrence which is usually done in the case of accident. The site-plan Ex. P. 6 purports to show that both the bullock cart and the bus RJR 1085 were being driven on the road from north to south. The marks `1' and `2' have been shown as the places were the dead bodies of Ramswaroop and Khatun were lying and mark `3' has been shown as the place where the bus was found standing after ' the accident, mark `6' has been shown as the place where Gomda fell from the bullock cart after its impact with the bus. The perusal of the site-plan demonstrates that it is of least assistance to the court. The width of the road and `Kachcha' cart track have not been mentioned. The distance between the place of the accident and the place where the bus stopped have also not been measured. Thus neither Ex. P. 6 nor the statement of PW 8 Dulichand who conducted the investigation are of any avail to the prosecution to prove that the bus No. RJR 1085 was being driven rashly with excessive speed at the time of accident. No doubt the prosecution witnesses stated that the bus was moving at high speed and that the driver did not blow the horn. PW 3 Kasturchand stated that the bus stopped at a distance of 15 feet from the place of impact. PW 4 Bherun Lal stated that the bus stopped at a distance of seven or eight 'Kadams' from the place of accident. PW 2 Lalu also stated that the bus was stopped at a distance of five or six `Kadams' from the place of incident. Thus it is in prosecution evidence that the bus after the accident stopped at a distance of 20 ft. The distance between the place where the brakes were applied and the place where the bus stopped after the accident does determine the speed at which the vehicle was moving although it cannot be termed to be conclusive on the point. On the basis of the above evidence and Rule 154 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the vehicle was moving at the spead of 15 miles per hour at the time of the accident. On the basis of the above evidence and Rule 154 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the vehicle was moving at the spead of 15 miles per hour at the time of the accident. The argument though attractive it is devoid of any merit because it fails to take notice of the fact that the collusion with the bullock cart would have considerably reduced the speed of the bus. Besides this, there is no evidence on the record as to from which place the brakes were applied by the driver of the bus. Thus the facts established are wholly insufficient to determine the speed of the bus at the time of accident. But on the basis of such an indecisive evidence culpable rashness cannot be attributed to the accused-petitioner. 5. Now I shall deal with the evidence of the eye-witnesses. So far as the witnesses deposing as having seen the occurrence in question are concerned their evidence has always to be scrutinised carefully because such witnesses mostly observe the accident when their attention is drawn to the noise produced resulting from the collision, in the case on hand the occupants of the bullock cart, due to sudden collision, must have been taken aback. A few of them were thrown on the left side of the cart and the unfortunate children, Ramswaroop and Khatun (Since deceased) were thrown on the right side of the cart In such circumstances the statements of the witnesses examined as eye-witnesses regarding the event which preceded to the accident are to a large extent bound to be influenced by what they imagined. PW 1 Govinda is not of much avail to the prosecution, because this witness in cross-examination admitted that he did not know how the children cams under the bus. PW 2 Latur no doubt supported the prosecution case in entirety. In cross-examination he stated that his bullock cart stopped at the place where the accident took place. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he tried to over-take the other bullock cart going ahead and in that process he swerved his bullock cart towards the right on the main road which led to the accident. His statement is that he was driving his bullock cart on the 'kachcha' cart track. A perusal of Ex. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he tried to over-take the other bullock cart going ahead and in that process he swerved his bullock cart towards the right on the main road which led to the accident. His statement is that he was driving his bullock cart on the 'kachcha' cart track. A perusal of Ex. P. 6 site-plan creates a great doubt about the veracity of his statement. If he was driving on the left side of the road on the `kachcha' bullock cart track it does not stand to reason how the dead bodies of two unfortunate children were found of the right side of the tar road on `kachcha' track. PW 4 Kasturchand who is the brother of deceased Ramswaroop stated in cross-examination that Latur tried to over-take to other bullock-cart and in that process he came on the road. At that stage the accident took place. PW 3 Girdhari in his examination-in-chief stated that after the accident the bus was found on the right side off the `pucca' road. The accused from the very beginning had taken the defence that owing to the mistake of the cart driver this unfortunate accident happened because PW 2 Latur suddenly brought the bullock cart on the main road. The same is the statement of defence witness D.W. I Surendra Stngh. The presence of the dead bodies on `kachcha' track on the right side of the tar road is explicable only on the hypothesis that the bullock cart driven by PW 2 Latur came on the main road all of a sudden, and thereafter again swerved to the left which resulted in the accident. As PW 2 Latur had left the bullock cart track of a sudden to over-take the bullock cart ahead of him without taking the least precaution of any approaching vehicle from behind, it could not be expected of a bus driver to Stop the vehicle at once how-so ever vigilant he might have been. Thus the accused petitioner can not be held to be either rash or negligent. 6. The prosecution is required to prove the case set up by them by cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. This Court in its revisional jurisdiction can not build up a new case for the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. Thus the accused petitioner can not be held to be either rash or negligent. 6. The prosecution is required to prove the case set up by them by cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. This Court in its revisional jurisdiction can not build up a new case for the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said with certainty that the death of the two unfortunate children was the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused-petitioner. The evidence on the record is not sufficient to hold with certainty that the guilt has been brought home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances of this case, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. The revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner Mohammad Ishaq under Section 304-A, IPC, by the lower courts are set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender to the bail bonds which shall stand cancelled. *******