Judgment 1. Petitioner was found guilty of the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of the I.P.C.For the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. For the offence under Section 338 of the I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and for the offence under Section 337, I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and fine of Rs. 400/-. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He filed appeal in the Court of Session. The appeal was dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accident took place on 17-9-1982 at about 10.15 p.m. The vehicle driven by the petitioner was a four wheeler bearing No. HRM 859 which dashed with truck No. PUK 7017 driven by one Mohinder Singh, who was also co-accused in the trial Court along with the petitioner. The truck was coming from the opposite side. The four wheeler which the petitioner was driving is alleged to have been driven at a high speed and was carrying 32 passengers and two goats. Appeals filed by the driver of the truck Mohinder Singh also met with the same fate. 3. The question to be considered is whether there is an infirmity in the finding that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The trial Court has relied on the cases of Mahadev Ballappa Babshet V/s. Ramesh Narayan Nagwekar, 1977 ACJ (Kant) 1 and Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanjamma, 1977 ACJ (Kant) 241. In both these cases the drivers of both the vehicles were held negligent. However, the judgments relate to the civil cases., i.e. Motor Accident Claim cases and I find that it will not be proper to apply the doctrine in the present case which is a criminal case, where guilt is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4. It is an admitted fact that the accident took place at night. However, the judgments relate to the civil cases., i.e. Motor Accident Claim cases and I find that it will not be proper to apply the doctrine in the present case which is a criminal case, where guilt is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4. It is an admitted fact that the accident took place at night. PW 3 and PW 6 have stated that the tempo (i.e. for wheeler) was driven by the petitioner at a high speed though it has come in the cross-examination of PW 5 that the tempo was being driven on its side "tempo wala apni side par tha". When this is the position and there is no evidence that the tempo had gone to the wrong side, then it will not be possible to brand the tempo driver, i.e. petitioner as rash and negligent. 5. The petitioner may be driving the four wheeler at a high speed. However, mere driving at a high speed cannot be said to be negligent. 6. The Courts below have considered the tempo being overloaded with passengers. However, the accident cannot be attributed to the overloading in absence of specific evidence. If the tempo driver was on its side then overloading will not assume any importance so far as the question of rash and negligent driving for causing the accident is concerned. PW 3 and PW 6 have stated that tempo was driven at a high speed in spite of telling the driver to go slow. However, they have not been able to say as to what the speed of the tempo was. 7. In view of the above reasons, I find that it is not possible to accept the findings of the Courts below that the petitioner was driving in a rash and negligent manner which caused the accident. In the incident, 7 passengers of the four wheeler had died and 11 of its passengers had sustained injuries. However, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the rash and negligent driving and, thus, his conviction cannot be upheld. 8. As a result, this petition is allowed. The conviction against the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence charged with. Fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded.