JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22nd December, 1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. As per cae of the prosecution, the respondent was driving car bearing registration No.DEC-2994 on 18th March, 1991. This car was driven in a rash and negligent manner on a public way. When it was coming from Mandi side and was on its way towards Sundernagar, then at a place known as Dhanotu this accident tock place at about 6 P.M. As a result of the aforesaid acts of the respondent while driving the car in question on a public. Way respondent caused injuries to Smt. Chuhari, lo which she. succumbed later on in the hospital. It may be appropriate to mention here that the death as per prosecution was the immediate result of the injuries sustained by the decease in the accident in question. 2. This fact came to the knowledge of Addl. S.H.O. S.l. Karam Singh (PW-6). He sent a ruqua, which lead to registration of the case. Ex.P,W6/D at Police Station vide F.I.R. No.123/91. In these circumstances, investigation of the case was undertaken by the police. Trial Court being satisfied that there is prima facie material to proceed against the respondent issued notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C, to which he pleaded not guilty and; claimed trial which resulted in acquittal. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State. 3. In this case, eye witnesses are PW-1 Shri Chet Ram and Shri Devi Singh (PW-3) as projected by the prosecution during the course of the trial below. When a reference is made to the statement of FWrl, he has spoken that a jeep was involved in the accident, which was witnessed by him. He has .also admitted in this cross- examination that he can distinguish between a car, a jeep, a truck and a bus. On the other hand, the other so called eye witness Shri Devi Singh has spoken that a car having been involved in the accident. This is a major and material contradiction in the accident regarding the vehicle which caused the accident in question. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the distinction of a car and jeep is quite obvious. On the other hand, the other so called eye witness Shri Devi Singh has spoken that a car having been involved in the accident. This is a major and material contradiction in the accident regarding the vehicle which caused the accident in question. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the distinction of a car and jeep is quite obvious. In case, both PW-1 and PW-3 were present on the spot when accident took place; ordinarily, they would have said so in one voice about the vehicle that was involved in the accident. 4. It has come in the statement of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 that deceased Smt. Chuhari was struck by the vehicle when she was in the middle c/f the road. She had crossed a truck before reaching the spot where accident took place. It has also come in the statement of these witnesses that brakes were applied immediately by the respondent who had brought the vehicle to a standstill. In case, the vehicle was being driven cither in a rash or negligent manner or at a high speed, then it would not have been possible for the respondent to have brought the car to a grinding halt. So far high speed of a vehicle is concerned, by itself it cannot be termed as an act of either rash or negligent driving which would depend upon the road and terrain, in which the road is located, rush of traffic, both vehicular and otherwise: There is no such evidence in the instant case enabling this Court to come to a conclusion that the speed of the vehicle was such which can be termed as an act of rashness on the part of the respondent. To the contrary, it has come in the cross- examination to PW;1 Shri Chet Ram that he is unable to state whether the speed of" the vehicle was 10 KM. or 1-5 K.M. This shows that he had no sense of speed at which the vehicle was driven at the time of accident. 5. Now the defence of the respondent needs to be examined in the light of the above discussed prosecution evidence. or 1-5 K.M. This shows that he had no sense of speed at which the vehicle was driven at the time of accident. 5. Now the defence of the respondent needs to be examined in the light of the above discussed prosecution evidence. The case of the respondent was abruptly after crossing a truck which was parked on the road, deceased suddenly appeared on the road, while respondent was coining from Mandi side on his way to Sundernagar when despite best efforts to stop the vehicle, which struck against the deceased, in this view of the matter, by no stretch of imagination, ii can be said that the respondent was driving the vehicle in the manner which can be termed as either rash c: negligent. In case, the vehicle was being driven at a high speed, then the deceased aid have been completely crushed, that is not the case here. 6. In order to enable this court to hold that vehicle was being driven cither in a rash or negligent mariner by the respondent at the time of accident there has to be position evidence brought by the prosecution to show the: the negligence was culpable and gross. It has to be something to the danger of which, if someone drew accuser’s attention, the latter must hold out he would not care. Negligence in order to fasten the accused with liability has to be more than an omission or neglect of duty as well as error of judgment. Prosecution evidence, to which brief reference has been made in this judgment, lacks these essential ingredients so as to hold the respondent guilty for the offences, for which he was charged. 7. No doubt, the accident had taken place on national high way at Dhanotu near Sundernagar but that itself cannot be made to be a ground to convict the respondent for want of other evidence. Similarly, on the bas s of prosecution evidence, it cannot be said the accident was the cause of gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and to take precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the respondent to have adopted. It is now well settled that a culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor had taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in the circumstances which show that the actor had not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that, cf he had, he would have had the consciousness/ the imputability arises from the neglect of the civil duty Of circumspection. 8. In order to test the guilt, it has to be seen that the knowledge and consciousness on the part of the respondent to cause the accident was like to result from what he did. His criminality consists in willfully incurring the risk of causing loss or suffering to other. Principle of exemption criminal liability in respect of a hurtful consequence is that of bonafide ignorance of the connection existing between the mere mechanical act and its consequence 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the veiw taken by the trial Court while acquitting respondent on examination of the prosecution evidence is cither not sustainable, or that the prosecution evidence, was of such a clinching nature which points towards only one conclusion i.e.. Guilt of the respondent. This Court is of the view that the view taken by the. Court below in prima facie reasonably and just, which calls for no interference. In addition to this by now it is well settled that when two views are possible: on examination of the entire-prosecution evidence, one favourable to the accused needs to be followed, as such on this ground also, the present appeal deserves to be rejected. 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is on bail, his personal and surety bond is ordered to be discharged Appeal dismissed.