JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Roop Singh was convicted by the Munsif Magistrate, Hanumangarh for an offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He preferred an appeal to the court of Sessions Judge Ganganagar, who by his order dated 11.5.1972 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Hanumangarh. Aggrieved by the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner in this Court. 2. The petitioner was convicted for rash and negligent driving the bus which over ran two persons who were proceeding on a cycle. The First Information Report was lodged by one Dula Ram, Constable of the Police Station Hanumangarh on 15.8.1969 stating that that he was sitting in the bus which was proceeding from Hanumangarh Junction to Hanumangarh Town. This bus was being driven at the very fast speed and that a little ahead from Major Nand Singh's Tube well the petitioner struck a cycle which was coming on the left side from Hanumangarh and that the driver did not give any born. Immediately after the collision both the persons sitting on the cycle fell down and the bus over ran them. The informant asked the driver to stop the bus but as it was running at the high speed it could be stopped at some distance. He asked the name of the driver from the Conductor, who stated his own name as Chander Singh and the same of the driver was told as Roop Singh. There were four and five other passenger travelling in the bus. Out of these two persons who fell down from the cycle in the collision one died on the spot and the other person suffered fracture in his leg and was in unconscious state and was sent to the hospital where he also later on succumbed to his injuries. The number of the bus was RSL 479. 3. The prosecution examined Dula Ram, who lodged the first Information Report and claims himself to be the eye witness of the occurrence. Rishiraj is the person who was the Incharge of the Station of Rajasthan State Roadways, Hanumangarh. The number of the bus was RSL 479. 3. The prosecution examined Dula Ram, who lodged the first Information Report and claims himself to be the eye witness of the occurrence. Rishiraj is the person who was the Incharge of the Station of Rajasthan State Roadways, Hanumangarh. PW.3 Ramchander was conductor in the Rajasthan State Roadways, Inderbhan is the Motbir who was present at the time of site inspection. PW.5 Kishanlal had done the mechanical examination of the said bus. Ramchander and S.K. Sharma were the doctors at Hanumangarh. The learned Munsif Magistrate found the petitioner guilty on the basis of the statement of the PW.1 Dula Ram. He was of the opinion that the bus was going from Hanumangarh Junction to Hanumangarh Town and the cycle was coming from the opposite direction and it cannot be said that the bus driver had no knowledge of the cycle coming from the opposite direction and that the accident could not have happened if the accused had slowed down the speed of the bus. This finding has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that simply because the collision has taken place and there has been loss of life, it cannot be said that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. The prosecution has to prove affirmatively by the direct or circumstantial evidence that there was culpable rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. There is no evidence that the petitioner was in any manner negligent in driving the bus. However, he has contended that there is only one statement of Dula Ram, who is said to be the eye witness and that the statement remains uncorroborated and rather it is contradictory by the site plan prepared at the spot soon after the accident took place. From the perusal of the site plan it is clear that the bus was coming on the left side and the collision took place at about 41/2' from the left hand side of the road coming from Hanumangarh Junction to Hanumangarh Town. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the cycle was coming on the right side is based on no evidence. There is no other evidence on the point as no other eye witness has been examined. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the cycle was coming on the right side is based on no evidence. There is no other evidence on the point as no other eye witness has been examined. The prosecution has relied upon the site plan and in the site plan the bus is shown coming on the left side from Hanumangarh Junction to Hanumangarh Town. This site plan has been duly proved. In the face of the site plan the vague statement of the PW.1 Dula Ram cannot be accepted that the cycle was coming from the opposite side. He has further contended that there is no other circumstances brought on record which may lead to the inference that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. In the alternative it has been submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty then he should be given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act as the incident relates to the year 1969 and more than 7 years have elapsed. It would not be proper to sent the accused petitioner to jail after such a long time. 5. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that from the statement of PW.1 Dula Ram it has been established that the petitioner was driving the said bus which collided with the cycle and struck with Ismile and Bhagwati, who were proceeding on cycle with the result the Ismile died on the spot and Bhagwati died later on in the hospital. The bus was running at a very high speed and it could be stopped at a distance of 61' which is quite a long distance. 6. It may be said that the only eye witness of the occurrence is PW.1 Dula Ram. His statement is to the effect that the petitioner was driving the bus from Hanumangarh Junction to Hanumangarh Town and near the Petrol Pump two persons were coming on the cycle and the cycle was on its own side. 6. It may be said that the only eye witness of the occurrence is PW.1 Dula Ram. His statement is to the effect that the petitioner was driving the bus from Hanumangarh Junction to Hanumangarh Town and near the Petrol Pump two persons were coming on the cycle and the cycle was on its own side. He further deposed that:- " lkbZfdy cl ds uhps vk x;k& M~kbZoj dh xYrh ls lkbZfdy cl ds uhps vk x;kA cl vkxs tkdj :dhA M~kbZoj :Mflag cl NksM+ dj Hkkx x;kA " From this statement it can very well be said that it is not a definite evidence to establish the guilt of the accused that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Mere deposition that due to the mistake of the driver the bus over ran the cyclists does not lead this court to an inference to fasten the guilt of the petitioner for negligent driving. This witness has not pointed out, in his statement, the circumstances under which the accident took place. He has also not stated that the cycle was coming from the front side, and it was his duty to stop the vehicle and avoid the accident. From the site plan also it cannot be presumed that the cycle was coming from the front side. The finding of the learned Magistrate that the cycle was coming from the side of Hanumangarh Town and was proceeding towards Hanumangarh Junction seems to have been based no evidence. Moreover, what was the nature of mistake on the part of the driver which resulted in the accident has not been specified by Dula Ram. Mere stating that " M~kbZoj dh xYrh ls lkbZfdy cl ds uhps vk x;kA " does not lead to the conclusion that it was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner or it was due to negligence of the cyclist. He has also not deposed in his statement before the Court that the bus was being driven at the very high speed and the driver could not stop the vehicle. It may also be pointed out that the facts mentioned in the site plan about distance etc. should have been deposed by Dula Ram in his statement on oath before the Court.Mere proving the site plan and that it was prepared does not mean that the facts stated therein are ipso facto proved. It may also be pointed out that the facts mentioned in the site plan about distance etc. should have been deposed by Dula Ram in his statement on oath before the Court.Mere proving the site plan and that it was prepared does not mean that the facts stated therein are ipso facto proved. However, assuming that the bus stopped at some distance it does not lead to the inference that the bus was at a very high speed and was beyond control. Moreover the question of speed depends upon the condition of the road whether it was straight or open high way or a zig zig way or whether it was busy road where the traffic can be presumed to be very heavy and the driver would be excepted to have a very low speed. In the present case the vehicle was neither passing through the busy locality nor there was any traffic on the road. Therefore, from the mere fact that the bus stopped at some distance after the collision does not ipso facto establish that the act of the accused was rash and negligent. To render a person liable for neglect of duty there must be such a degree of culpability as to amount to gross negligence on his part. It is not every little trip or mistake that will make him so liable. The question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Moreover, applying the above criterion it is necessary to avoid being influenced by the prejudice arising out of the loss of life which is so dominant a factor in accident cases. In the present case it is no where in the evidence that the cyclists were going from Hanumangarh Town to Hanumangarh Junction i.e. from the opposite direction of the bus which was coming from Hanumangarh Junction to Hanumangarh Town and therefore the inference that the driver must have seen them and should have stopped the vehicle earlier and avoided accident, could not be drawn. This circumstances has, therefore, not been established against the petitioner. This circumstances has, therefore, not been established against the petitioner. The evidence of Dula Ram PW.1 before the Magistrate does not lead to irresistible conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused by direct or circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 7. In these circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused for an offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and therefore he is acquitted of the same and his conviction and sentence are set aside. The revision petition is therefore allowed. *******