Judgment The State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Trichur in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1959. The accused was convicted by the Munsiff Magistrate of Chowghat under sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not prepared to believe the eye-witnesses who spoke in support of the prosecution and he has quashed the conviction. That an incident took place at 9 a.m. on 9th April, 1958, that bus K.L.T. 2503 dashed against a hand-cart belonging to the Chowghat Panchayat and that P.W. 1 sustained injuries is not disputed. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the sweepers who were in charge of the hand-cart. Their case was that when they saw the bus coming, they took the hand-cart to the extreme side of the road away from the tarred portion, that the hand-cart was stationary, that the accused was driving the bus at an excessive speed and that it was as a result of this that the bus dashed against the hand-cart. As stated by the learned Sessions Judge the evidence with regard to the speed of the bus was inconclusive. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that they stopped the hand-cart when they saw the bus coming was rightly disbelieved, because it was not mentioned in Exhibit P-3 the report of the Executive Officer a report based on the information which he gathered after questioning P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 9 the Head-Constable whquestioned the witnesses has also stated that the witnesses never told him that they had stopped the hand-cart and that the accident took place when the cart was stationary. P.W. 4 is another witness who was put forward as an eye-witness. According to him he saw the incident when he was in his house, but when he was questioned by the Head-Constable P.W. 9 he had told him that he saw the incident from the road while he was returning from a place called Athanickal and not when he was seated in his house. The evidence of P.W. 5 also has not been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. I have perused the evidence of these witnesses and I am not prepared to say that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is in any way improper or unwarranted. The evidence of P.W. 5 also has not been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. I have perused the evidence of these witnesses and I am not prepared to say that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is in any way improper or unwarranted. A person could be found guilty of an offence under section 279, Indian Penal Code, only if it is proved that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently Rashness or negligence must be what must be described as criminal rashness or criminal negligence. There must be something more than mere carelessness or an error of judgment. The prosecution has not succeeded in establishing these essential ingredients and the accused should get the benefit of that doubt. The High Court, no doubt, has the power to review the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions, but in reaching its conclusions upon pure questions of fact, the High Court will always give proper weight and consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the right of the accused to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. It is also well established that the order of acquittal will be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. Judged in the light of these principles. I do not think that this is a case for interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed. M.C.M.-----Appeal dismissed.