JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - This revision arises out of the appellate order dated 7.5.1985 passed by Mr. D. Kar, Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore, in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1984 upholding the conviction and sentence dated 18.10.1984 passed by Mr. U.N. Padhi, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore in G.R. Case No. 751 of 1981 convicting the petitioner under Sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence u/s 304A, Indian Penal Code and awarding no separate sentence for the conviction u/s 279, Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the accused petitioner G. Laxminarayana was the driver of the jeep ORK 4957 and on 5.12.1981 at about 9.15 a.m., the accused was driving the jeep on the National Highway No. 43 towards Jeypore. Near the village Randapalli, the jeep of the accused had to pass by the side of a truck, which had been parked on the road facing towards Borigumma. At the time when the jeep passed by the side of the truck there was some sound and a boy aged about 4 years fell down on the ground with various injuries on his person. The boy was taken to the hospital and there he died. F.I.R. was lodged and after the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the accused stood his trial and was convicted and sentenced thereunder. 3. The accused petitioner admitted that he was the driver of the jeep ORK 4957, but he has taken a plea that he was driving the jeep slowly and blowing horn and that he is not responsible for running over the boy. 4. From the evidence on record and also the findings of the trial court and appellate court, it is clear that the petitioner G. Laxminarayana was driving the jeep ORK 4957 on the National Highway No. 43 towards Jeypore and near the village Randapalli, the jeep dashed against a boy aged about 4 years. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner argues that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was guilty of culpable rashness and culpable negligence and hence the act taken as a whole does not amount to any offence. 6. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner argues that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was guilty of culpable rashness and culpable negligence and hence the act taken as a whole does not amount to any offence. 6. In this case the petitioner was driving a jeep on the National Highway No. 43 and hence the petitioner cannot be expected to observe extreme caution in the matter of speed as it was a national highway. Not a single witness has stated as to what was the approximate speed of the vehicle. Some witnesses have stated that it was going in a high speed. 'High speed' does not indicate anything regarding culpable rashness and negligence in driving the vehicle. This statement is somewhat indefinite regarding the speed of the vehicle. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has not been examined in this case. Harakrishna Giri who was sitting in the jeep has stated in his cross-examination that the jeep was moving on the road with a normal speed. This statement goes to show that the speed of the vehicle was within the control of the driver. PW 3 has stated that the rear wheel of the jeep ran over on the back of the boy. This is a circumstance which eliminates culpable rashness and negligence on the part of the driver and this statement of PW 3 goes unchallenged. PW 4 has stated that the left side of the jeep dashed against the boy. This is also a statement which eliminates culpable rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as ordinarily when there is an accident there should be either head-on collision or the right side of the vehicle dashed against the deceased. 7. The I.O. (PW 9) has stated that: I visited the spot and found that the pitch portion of the road 3.4 mts, having earthen planks on either side, measuring 4.20 mts to the north and 2.20 mts to south. The spot was Jeypore-Borigumma Road. I did not find any skid mark at the spot. It was a straight road. One truck was parked on the southern plank of the road at the spot covering a pitch portion which I have not measured. There was enough space for a jeep to pass. 8. The spot was Jeypore-Borigumma Road. I did not find any skid mark at the spot. It was a straight road. One truck was parked on the southern plank of the road at the spot covering a pitch portion which I have not measured. There was enough space for a jeep to pass. 8. From the above statement of PW 9, it is clear that the road was clear and there was no obstruction and hence any vehicle is expected to maintain the speed as may be necessary on a clear highway. Therefore, the speed of 60-70 kmph may be called normal in the circumstances of the case, although to a passer-by the speed may appear to be high. In any case, there was no necessity for a driver to observe unnecessary caution when enough space was there for a jeep to pass on the highway and the circumstances were such that it is difficult to say that the driver was guilty of culpable rashness and negligence. In any case, the allegation that the accused was guilty of culpable rashness and negligence is doubtful and a benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused in the circumstances of the case. The lower courts have not taken into consideration the above circumstances in their proper perspective and it appears that the fact that the boy died has weighed much with the courts below. Whether a person dies or somebody is grievously injured, does not in any way make the driver of a vehicle liable unless the driver is shown to be rash and negligent and such rashness and negligence is culpable. The courts below have not given due attention to this aspect of law and hence the conclusion arrived at by the courts below must be held to be erroneous. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and upheld by the appellate court is set aside. Final Result : Allowed