JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—By this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge ([), Kangra Division, in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1985, decided on 7-1-1987 thereby confirming the decision of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, in Criminal Case No. 114-11/8 U decided on 29-12-1984. By this decision, the petitioner has been convicted under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs 2,000 and in default of the payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine, on realisation, has been ordered to be paid to the parents of the deceased. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on September 20. 1982, the petitioner was driving truck No. HPS-4955 from Nagrota to Palampur, a State Highway. He crushed to death Rakesh Kumar (6) near Darang at about 12.15 p. m. while the child was standing on the left side of the road. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was the outcome of the same. The parents of the child and some other persons raised noise and the petitioner stopped the vehicle at a distance of 50 feet from the place of accident. The matter was reported to the police. Thereafter the matter was investigated and ultimately a case under section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the petitioner. The trial ended in the aforesaid conviction of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. 3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Further, the petitioner denied that the accident had taken place on account of his rash and negligent driving. In fact, the child got frightened on the blowing of the horn with the result that it attempted to cross the road and thus came under the rear tyres of the truck which resulted to the mishap. Both the courts came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. I proceed to look into the evidence adduced by the prosecution as the question of ones being rash or negligent in the driving of a vehicle is dependant on evidence-that being purely a question of fact. 4. I proceed to look into the evidence adduced by the prosecution as the question of ones being rash or negligent in the driving of a vehicle is dependant on evidence-that being purely a question of fact. 4. The evidence of Doctor R. K. Bajaj (PW 1) is not very much relevant because there is no dispute as to the accident and death of the child due to the same. 5. Shri Vishwas Kumar (PW 2) is a motor Mechanic attached with the police department. He states that the vehicle was examined by him and the same was mechanically fit and he gave his report (Ex. PC). 6. Shri Ghanshyam (PW 7) is the father of the deceased. He states that on 20-9-1982 at about 2 p.m. he was coming back from Darang along-with his wife Shrimati Chander Kanta (PW 8) and the child. They bad reached the main road from some village passage and found that Truck No. HPS-4955 came from Nagrota side. It was being driven in a high speed. At that time the deceased was standing on the left side of the road. The truck had run over the child and the child was completely crushed to death under the tyres of the truck. At that place, the road was 16 feet wide and two vehicles could pass easily. He further stated that he and his wife had made noise and the truck driver had stopped the truck at a distance of45 feet from the place of accident. In cross-examination, he states that the deceased had reached the edge of the pucca road. He admits the existence of a curve but denies that the same is at a distance of 15 yards from the place of accident. According to him, the curve was at a distance of 100 yards. He further denies that the petitioner had blown horn at the curve and that the child got frightened due to the horn and ran across the road. He further states that the child came under the front tyres and denies that the petitioner tried to save the child but could not do so despite efforts. 7. Shrimati Chander Kanta (PW 8) supports her husband. She also states that the child could be seen clearly by the truck driver on the road before the accident. He further states that the child came under the front tyres and denies that the petitioner tried to save the child but could not do so despite efforts. 7. Shrimati Chander Kanta (PW 8) supports her husband. She also states that the child could be seen clearly by the truck driver on the road before the accident. She denies that the child got frightened due the blowing of the horn and started running across the road. 8. Raghubir Singh (PW 9) states that he saw the truck coming in a high speed from Pathankot side. He further states that the truck had run over the child who was standing on the left side of the road. He denies that the truck driver had blown the horn as a result of which the child got frightened and started crossing the road. 9. Shri Devinder Kumar (PW 10) also states that the child was standing on the left side of the road and the truck was being driven at a high speed and the same had run over the child and the parents of the child were also with him at the time of the accident besides Raghubir Singh (PW 9). Regarding curve, he states that the same was at a distance of 100/150 yards from the place of accident. He denies that the truck driver had blown the horn as a result of which the child got afraid and started crossing the road. 10. Shri Chainu Ram (PW 5) also states that the child was standing on the edge of the pucca road and was run over by a truck which was being driven in a high speed. 11. Shri Ram Swaroop (PW 4) reached the spot on hearing the noise. 12. This is the prosecution evidence in this case- Now, it is to be seen whether the petitioner has committed the offence within the meaning of section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 13. While dealing with such type of cases, care has to be taken that evidence adduced is sometimes thoroughly prejudicial against the motorist. Chances of exaggerating the events are not sometimes uncommon. Witnesses are also influenced by prejudices against the offender. Therefore, simply because a life has been cut short, the matter has not to be approached with jaundice style. The matter has to be scanned, assessed and appreciated in right perspective, 14. Chances of exaggerating the events are not sometimes uncommon. Witnesses are also influenced by prejudices against the offender. Therefore, simply because a life has been cut short, the matter has not to be approached with jaundice style. The matter has to be scanned, assessed and appreciated in right perspective, 14. Adverting to the facts of this case, it is in evidence that the truck in question was loaded with fertilizer weighing 90 quintals. Obviously, it cannot be said that the speed of the vehicle was very fast. Secondly, it is a State Highway and not a National Highway. Therefore, the speed on this account as well cannot be considered to be very high. 15. Coming to the statements of witnesses on this aspect, it has been stated that the truck was moving in high speed but it has not been said as to what that speed actually was. To say that a vehicle was moving in a high speed is neither a proper and legal evidence on high speed nor in any way indicates thereby the rashness on the part of the driver. The prosecution should have been exact on this aspect as speed of the vehicle is an essential point to be seen and proved in a case under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, there are no skid marks which eliminate the evidence of high speed of the vehicle. In addition to this, it has been stated by the witnesses that the vehicle stopped at a distance of 50 yards from the place of accident. This appears to be exaggerated. However, it is not a long distance looking to the two points ; viz, the first impact of the accident and the last tyres of the vehicle and the total length of the body of the truck in question. If seen from these angles, the distance stated by the witnesses cannot be considered to be very long and thus an indication of high speed. The version of the petitioner that he blew the horn near about the place of curve which frightened the child, cannot be considered to be without substance. If seen from these angles, the distance stated by the witnesses cannot be considered to be very long and thus an indication of high speed. The version of the petitioner that he blew the horn near about the place of curve which frightened the child, cannot be considered to be without substance. This can otherwise be reasonably inferred that the petitioner would have blown the horn on seeing the child on the road as it is in evidence that the child had come on the pucca portion of the road while there is no evidence as to whether the witnesses, more particularly, Shri Ghanshyam (P. W. 7), Smt. Chander Kanta (P. W. 8), mother, and a few other witnesses were there at that particular time. Rather the deposition of these witnesses indicate that they were coming from some village lane which was joining the main road in question. Children of this age, usually crafty by temperament, move faster than the parents and are in advance of them while walking. This appears to have happened in the present case. Minute examination of the circumstances of this case and the evidence brought on the record, discloses that the deceased had reached the pucca portion of the road much before the arrival of his parents and the witnesses. That is why in their deposition they have said that the child had been run over by the truck. On the other hand, the petitioner has stated that the child got frightened on the blowing of the horn by him and started crossing the road which could not be seen by him and the result was the accident and the death of the child. In case, some pedestrians suddenly cross a road, the driver of the vehicle cannot save the pedestrian, howsoever slow he may be driving the vehicle. In case, some pedestrians suddenly cross a road, the driver of the vehicle cannot save the pedestrian, howsoever slow he may be driving the vehicle. In such a situation he cannot be held negligent ; rather it appears that the parents of the child were negligent in not taking proper care of the child and allowed him to come alone to the road while they were somewhere behind and they could have rushed to pull back the child before the approaching vehicle came in contact with it as it is in their depositions that the truck driver was at a distance coming at a high speed and in case the child wanted to cross the road, it could do so within the time it reached at the place of the accident. How the accident has actually taken place, has not been clearly and comprehensively stated by any of the witnesses. They appear to have been prejudiced by the act of the driver. Their versions are, therefore, coloured by the ultimate act of the petitioner and the fact that the child had been finished. 16. After taking into consideration all the aspects of this, I am of the opinion that it is a case of pure accident and the petitioner is not responsible for the same. The courts below have not rightly appreciated the facts and the evidence on record and the conclusions of rashness and negligence have been arrived at without any cogent and convincing evidence therefor. 17. In view of the examination of the matter as above, there is neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the petitioner and the contrary inferences drawn on this aspect by the courts below are thoroughly inapt and against the evidence on the record. 18. The result is, there is merit in this revision petition ; the same is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner is set-aside. The bail bond and surety bond, if any, executed by the petitioner are hereby discharged. Revision allowed.-