Judgment :- 1. Petitioner was concurrently found guilty of offences punishable under S.304(A) & 337 IPC. Prosecution case was that petitioner drove bus KRE 2714 in a rash or negligent manner as a result of which it collided with scooter KRC 1733 that Pw. I was riding. The pillion rider was thrown off, and he sustained injuries which eventually led to his death. Courts below found the petitioner guilty on the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and no more; because there was nothing more, by way of evidence. Pw.1 did not claim to have seen the occurrence and apparently he could not have, because it happened behind him. Pw. 2 does not speak to any collision between the bus and the scooter. Pw. 3 says that it was his recollection that the bus hit the scooter at its rear. It would thus be seen that there was no direct evidence of collision. Nor do, witnesses speak of rash, or negligent driving. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the evidence does not make out the basic ingredients, required to find the offence. He is right. Evidence of the Motor Vehicle Inspector could have been useful, But, for reasons best known to the prosecution, he did not turn up and nor were steps taken to ensure his presence. It is the contention of counsel that if he bad been examined, it would have proved that there was no collision. To lend support to this argument, counsel referred to the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report produced, but not marked. This shows that the damage seen on the scooter was on its front mudguard, mirror fitted on the front side, and the front shield. There was not even a scratch on the paint on the rear of the scooter, as one would have expected if there was a collision. The front aspect of the bus also does not reveal any damage, scratch mark or other signs of collision. Probabilities are that the bus did not hit the scooter. Petitioner's case is that Pw-1 was learning to drive the scooter and that the accident was due to his poor driving. 3. Counsel then invited attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nageswar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC. 165). The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity to note tyre-marks because, this would be material evidence. Petitioner's case is that Pw-1 was learning to drive the scooter and that the accident was due to his poor driving. 3. Counsel then invited attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nageswar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC. 165). The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity to note tyre-marks because, this would be material evidence. Tyre-marks may not be available in every case but wherever they are available, they would afford positive and intrinsic evidence. It is to the advantage of prosecution and the Investigator, to note tyre-marks whenever they are present. Atleast, after the Supreme Court pronounced, any diligent investigating agency should have borne in mind the significance of the observations in the decision which is Law under Art.141 of the Constitution. It is unfortunate that even such matters are not noticed by the investigating agency, where serious offences affecting road safety are involved. 4. It is not infrequently that cases of this nature end in acquittal for want of evidence regarding rashness or negligence. The evidence regarding length and direction of tyre-marks, can be very eloquent evidence. From the cases, coming before this Court and experience of life, judicial notice can be taken of the appalling increase in road accidents. In India, death rate is 59.1, per 10,000 vehicles, while in U. S. it is 3.1, Britain 3 and Sweden 2.5, (see Study of Transport and Road Research Laboratories Dr. Godfrey Jacob and Dr. C. A. Cutting-Leicester University). Economic cost of such accidents in U.S. alone in a year is about dollars 80 Billions. According to Dinesh Mohan a W.H.O., traffic engineering consultant in 1986, 40,000 people were killed in road accidents while in 1980 it was about half this. The number of people injured have doubled in six years and the figure for 1986 touches 1.75 lakhs. Insurance companies have paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 266 crores in 1985. 5. Causes are many. Spurious automobile parts, poor roads, a licencing process which leaves much to be desired, poor driving with little regard for safety-are some of the causes. National Transport Planning & Research Centre, Trivandrum, in a survey found that of 173 truck drivers, 90 per cent had defective sight. 50 per cent of drivers were unfamiliar with signals. (Central Road Research Institute Survey). 6. National Transport Planning & Research Centre, Trivandrum, in a survey found that of 173 truck drivers, 90 per cent had defective sight. 50 per cent of drivers were unfamiliar with signals. (Central Road Research Institute Survey). 6. Enforcement of traffic laws, and adequate punishments are important to bring back a certain morality to the roads. This is an area of vital importance to public safety and must receive the attention it merits. Prosecutions must be effective, and should not be confined to four wheelers, but every offending vehicle and other agencies. In the instant case it was a two wheeler that appears to be responsible for the accident. The enormous increase in the number of two wheelers make it imperative that to ensure safety on roads, they should also be subject to strict road discipline. Punishment also must be deterrent (See State of Karnataka v. Krishna, AIR 1987 SC 861). 7. I make these observations in the hope that this will be taken note of by the concerned authorities for purpose of giving guidelines to the investigating officers. In the absence of legal evidence, connecting the accused with the crime, conviction cannot be sustained. Order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are set aside and the accused (petitioner) is acquitted. Petition allowed. Registrar of this Court will cause a copy of this judgment to be forwarded to the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala and Inspector General of Police (Head Quarters), Trivandrum.