ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) ON the accusation of rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of one Sambhu Naik (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), Badri Prasad Tiwari (hereinafter referred to as the accused') faced trial. ( 2 ) ACCUSATIONS were in short, as follows : on 19-6-1988 at about 6. 30a. m. the deceased along with Jabir Lakra (P. W. 2) was returning from Rairakhol in a bullock-cart followed by Siril Oram (P. W. 1) and Laren Kulu (P. W. 4) in another bullock-cart. Near Tarbeda crossing on Rairakhol-Naktideula road, a mini bus bearing registration No. CAS 4651 belonging to Pradhan Transport which was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner by the accused came and dashed against the deceased and ran over him causing his instantaneous death. After a little while, the informant arrived at the spot and learnt about the accident from Jabir Lakra (P. W. 2 ). Immediately a written report was lodged with Rairakhol Police Station. Investigation was undertaken, and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted. The accused faced trial for having committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'ipc' ). ( 3 ) IN order to further its case prosecution examined seven witnesses. P. W. 2 claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned trial Judge found the evidence of the witnesses to be credible and cogent and placing reliance on it held that offences under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC were established against the accused. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and one year respectively, with a direction that sentences were to run concurrently. In appeal conviction and sentence were maintained by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. ( 4 ) IN support of appeal, learned Counsel for the accused has urged that even if prosecution case is accepted in its totality, the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC are not made out. It is stated that if evidence of P. W. 2 is held to be cogent and credible at the most what can be concluded is that there was an accident and the deceased met his death. That by itself is not sufficient to attract the application of Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC so far as petitioner is concerned. It is stated that if evidence of P. W. 2 is held to be cogent and credible at the most what can be concluded is that there was an accident and the deceased met his death. That by itself is not sufficient to attract the application of Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC so far as petitioner is concerned. Learned Counsel for State on the other hand, supported the judgment of conviction and sentence as awarded by learned trial Judge and confirmed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. ( 5 ) SECTION 279, IPC deals with rash and negligent driving of any vehicle or riding on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In order to constitute an offence under Section 279, IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of Section 279 rash and negligence may be described as criminal rashness or criminal negligence. It must be more than mere carelessness of error of judgment. The essential ingredients of Section 279 are : (I) Rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way. (ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. For an offence punishable under Sec. 304-A, IPC, the point to be established is that the act of accused was responsible for resulting in the death and such act of the accused was rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. To establish either of Sections 279 or 304-A rash and negligent has to be established, but only distinction is that in Section 279 rash and negligent act relates to the manner of driving or riding on a public way, while offence under Section 304-A extends to any rash and negligent act falling short of culpable homicide. As indicated above, rashness or negligence to be established must be more than an error of judgment. Distinction between rashness and negligence is that negligence connotes want of proper care, while rashness conveyes the idea of reckless doing of an act without consideration of any consequences. As indicated above, rashness or negligence to be established must be more than an error of judgment. Distinction between rashness and negligence is that negligence connotes want of proper care, while rashness conveyes the idea of reckless doing of an act without consideration of any consequences. ( 6 ) IN the case at hand, I find that except a bare Statement made by P. W. 2 that the vehicle was being driven in a high speed, no attempt has been made to establish that there was any rash and / or negligent act on the part of the driver-accused. Therefore, in my considered opinion prosecution has failed to establish that death was occasioned by either rash and / or negligent driving of the vehicle or any negligent act of accused so as to attract provisions of Sections 279 and/or 304-A, IPC. Accordingly, conviction and consequential sentences are Set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges. Bail-bonds be diacharged. The Criminal Revision is allowed. Petition allowed. .