JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition by Sadhu Singh against the upholding of his conviction by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur District by judgment dated 19th January, 1991 awarded sentence under Sec. 304-A IPC. 2. The first informant Mahaveer alongwith his nephew Dharampal aged 9 years was going to attend Nukta of the death of mother of Prema Gujar to village Ameth alongwith several other persons of the village. His nephew Dharampal with 2-3 other small childrens were going near the road-side and Mahaveer, Ram Dayal and Bahadur were behind them. At about 10 a.m. Truck No. URJ-279 came at a fast speed and the truck ran over Dharampal under the tyres of the truck. The driver of the truck did not stop and drove away the truck at a fast speed. Dharampal died on the spot. On this report Ex. P. 2 of Mahaveer, the SHO. Police Station, Kotputli, registered a case under Section 304-A IPC and after necessary investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli after trial found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and for the former offence the petitioner was fined with Rs. 500/- and for the letter with 6 month's simple imprisonment and further with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Out of the amount of fine, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was ordered to be paid to Bharta Ram, father of Dharampal deceased. As against this conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur District on 19th January, 1991. The Addl. Sessions Judge, partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner in as much as he set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 297 IPC. It is against the conviction and sentence under Section 304-A, that the petitioner has come in revision to this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that courts below without considering whether the petitioner was driving in a rash and negligent manner convicted him on the sole basis that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed. It was urged that the incident took place on a National Highway and it cannot be expected from a driver to drive his vehicle at a very slow speed on a National Highway. It was urged that the incident took place on a National Highway and it cannot be expected from a driver to drive his vehicle at a very slow speed on a National Highway. In the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner was rash and negligent in his act, the conviction and sentence under Section 304-A IPC could not at all be warranted. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the incident took place on 3rd May, 1983 and it would be too hard to send the petitioner to jail after the expiry of a period of more than 9 years.3-A. The Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, in his judgment has stated that two sets of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The first set of witnesses consists of Mahaveer P.W. 2, Ram Singh P.W. 4 and Jitendra P.W. 8 who had deposed that the petitioner was driving at a fast speed and the truck hit Dharampal. They further deposed that the petitioner did not stop the truck after the truck accident & drove-away the same. The other set of witnesses consists of Ram Dayal, P.W. 1, Bahadur P.W. 3 and Ram Karan P.W. 5 who saw the dead-body of Dharam Pal after the accident. 4. Onkar P.W. 7 had inspected the site and had prepared the site-plan Ex. P. 4. From the site-plan Ex. P. 4, it will appear that the dead-body of Dharam Pal was lying on the right side of the National Highway. Mahaveer, P.W. 2 in his statement has not at all mentioned regarding the manner in which the incident took place. He has not stated as to at what place of the road Dharam Pal was going when the incident took place and as to how it took place. There is same position about Ram Singh P.W. 4. Jitendra Singh P.W. 8 whose evidence has been relied by the courts below has stated that a boy, after seeing the truck coming at a fast speed, advanced towards the truck running and he was over-ran by the truck. 5. It would thus appear that from the mere fact that the truck was coming at a fast speed on a National Highway, it cannot be said that there was any negligence or rashness on the part of the petitioner in driving the truck. 5. It would thus appear that from the mere fact that the truck was coming at a fast speed on a National Highway, it cannot be said that there was any negligence or rashness on the part of the petitioner in driving the truck. If the child himself advanced towards the truck, the fault lay upon the adults who had left the child uncared on Highway. There is no evidence from the side of the prosecution that the child was going out near the side of the road. In the absence of such evidence from the side of the prosecution, the gist of the offence, namely, negligence or rashness is not established for conviction under Section 304-A IPC. 6. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC and acquit him of the said offence. He is on bail and he need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby revoked. *******