Judgment 1. Petitioner stands convicted for the offences under Ss. 304-A and 337 of the IPC.He was convicted by the learned JMIC Kurukshetra. In appeal filed by the petition, the learned Sessions Judge, modified his sentence by reducing the period of imprisonment under both the Sections, Hence, the petitioner has come on revision before this Court. 2. I have perused the papers and have also heard Mr. Chetan Dass, the learned District Attorney, After perusing the papers. I find that it is not possible to uphold the conviction of the petitioner. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witneses, out of which P.W.2 is the only-eye-witness. In the accident, three occupants of the car died when there was an impact of the car with the truck driven by the petitioner. P.W.2 Sukhjit Singh son of Darshan Singh is the eye-witness, who was also one of the occupants in the car. In his deposition, he has stated that the truck was coming at a very high speed from Delhi side which dashed against the car. The car was going towards Delhi side. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say whether the car was on its side or centre of the road at the time of the accident, or whether it was on the side of the truck. He has further stated that came to know only that the accident had taken place. He has also stated that he did not know as to what the speed of the car was. He also deposed in his cross-examination that he cannot state as to at what speed the driver of the car was driving the vehicle. He also stated that there was no vehicle either ahead of the car or truck. He has also stated that the car was standing on its side when the accident had taken place. However, he stated that he did not remember whether he stated so in his police statement or not. No question regarding this omission appears to have been asked to the Investigating Officer. However, even if this position is kept aside, the deposition of P.W.2 only goes to show that he came to know about the accident after it had taken place. His statement that the truck was coming at a high speed also cannot be accepted. No question regarding this omission appears to have been asked to the Investigating Officer. However, even if this position is kept aside, the deposition of P.W.2 only goes to show that he came to know about the accident after it had taken place. His statement that the truck was coming at a high speed also cannot be accepted. Moreover, running of a vehicle at a high speed by itself is not a negligent act. There is no site plan seen in the record. However, there are some photographs produced by the photographer P.W.9. The photographs are at Ex. P8 to P.14. They show head on collision of the two vehicles. However, it is not possible to infer from photographs that the truck had left its side and gone on the wrong side. On the contrary, in some photographs some shrubs appear on the left side of the truck showing thereby that the truck was on the exteme left side of the road. 3. Except P.W.2, there is no other witness to connect the allegation of rash and negligent driving with the petitioner. 4. As a result, though the accident is unfortunate, which has resulted into loss of three lives it will not be proper to hold the petitioner rash and negligent in casuing the accident. 5. As a result, this revision petition is allowed, the judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences charged with.