Judgment :- This revision case is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2004 passed in Crl.A.No.168 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, whereby and where under the conviction and sentences passed against the petitioner herein i.e. accused in C.C.No.420 of 1998, dated 24.08.2001, passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, were confirmed. 2. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 338 IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 4. The petitioner is the resident of Yellamarru Village, Pedaparipudi Mandal of Krishna District. He was driving the lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 6388. On 10.08.1998 at about 12 noon the lorry driven by the petitioner left Vijayawada with a load of rice bags and was proceeding towards Kakinada. On the way, when the said lorry reached Undrajavaram Road Junction on National Highway No.5 he stopped lorry and PWs.1 to 16 and deceased 1 to 3 boarded the said lorry at about 4.30 PM. When the said lorry reached between K.M. stones 139/8 and 140/8 on the outskirts of Paravali Village, the petitioner had driven the lorry in rash and negligent manner and abruptly applied breaks, as a result of which, the lorry suddenly turned towards northern side margin of the National Highway and fell into a ditch. The rice bags fell upon the deceased 1 to 4 and other injured witnesses. Unfortunately, deceased 1 to 4 were crushed to death beneath the rice bags at the spot. PWs.17 and 18 witnessed the accident. PW.28 along with the staff rushed to the scene of offence and sent the injured to the Government Hospital, Tanuku for treatment. The rice bags fell upon the deceased 1 to 4 and other injured witnesses. Unfortunately, deceased 1 to 4 were crushed to death beneath the rice bags at the spot. PWs.17 and 18 witnessed the accident. PW.28 along with the staff rushed to the scene of offence and sent the injured to the Government Hospital, Tanuku for treatment. Basing on the hospital intimation a case in Crime No.79 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC was registered. The doctor who conducted the postmortem over the dead bodies of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage. PW.5 sustained grievous injury. The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle opined that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 30 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.45. None were examined on behalf of the petitioner. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the place of accident is at the height of about 100 feet from the ground level and when lorry was proceeding on up-gradient road and therefore, there was no possibility for the petitioner to drive the vehicle at high speed. It is also his submission that the evidence on record shows that suddenly a person emerged on scooter from the backside of the lorry which was parked along with the road and came in front of the lorry and in the above circumstances the petitioner applied sudden brakes to save the life of the said scootarist and had the petitioner not applied the sudden breaks the scootarist would have died. Thus, his submission is that to save the life of the scootarist, the petitioner applied sudden breaks, but unfortunately the lorry had capsized and it is nothing but an act of the God and that the petitioner is not responsible for the accident. Thus, his submission is that to save the life of the scootarist, the petitioner applied sudden breaks, but unfortunately the lorry had capsized and it is nothing but an act of the God and that the petitioner is not responsible for the accident. It is also his submission that since it was raining on that day, mud portion on either side road became loose and therefore, the lorry slipped and fell into a ditch. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgments of the Courts below and submitted that the petitioner had allowed about 16 passengers on the top of the load of the lorry and this itself shows that the petitioner was not taking proper care while driving the lorry. It is also his submission that the very circumstance that when sudden breaks were applied the lorry severed towards foot path and fell into a ditch shows that the driver could not control the lorry and it was being driven at high speed. 9. The only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the findings of the Courts below are based on the evidence and conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner sustainable? 10. Unfortunately ghastly accident occurred and four persons died and several others sustained injuries. It also appears that the petitioner was driving the lorry at speed at the time of accident. The very fact that when he applied sudden breaks the lorry severed and fell into a ditch shows that it was being driven at speed. Normally, when a vehicle is driven at moderate speed or slowly even if sudden breaks are applied the possibility of capsizing would be remote. Drivers generally maintain speed while proceeding on National Highways. In this case, admittedly, the lorry proceeding on National Highway. Of course, it was proceeding on up-gradient road at the place of accident. Therefore, it appears that though the lorry was being driven at speed it may be proceeding with normal speed. Mere driving the vehicle at speed cannot be termed as driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The rough and negligent driving means driven the vehicle rashly in a careless manner. 11. Therefore, it appears that though the lorry was being driven at speed it may be proceeding with normal speed. Mere driving the vehicle at speed cannot be termed as driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The rough and negligent driving means driven the vehicle rashly in a careless manner. 11. In this case, the witnesses have categorically admitted that when the lorry was going along left side of the road, two lorries were stationed by the other side of the road and one scootarist suddenly came on the road from the back side of a stationed lorry and the petitioner tried to avoid the accident and applied sudden breaks and consequently the lorry turned towards extreme left and fell in a ditch. PWs.1 to 7 have stated the above mentioned facts. Thus, it appears that when the scootarist suddenly emerged from the back side of the stationed lorry and came in front of the lorry the petitioner applied sudden breaks and moved the lorry towards extreme left and as a result of which the lorry fell in a ditch resulting in major accident. It has also come in the evidence that it was raining at the time of accident. Therefore, either side of earthen portion of the road must have become wet and loose. In view of the soil condition and in view of sudden application of breaks the lorry seems to have moved towards left slipped and fell in a ditch. It is a fact that the lorry was loaded with rice bags and the petitioner allowed the passengers to squat on the load of the lorry. As far as allowing the passengers on the lorry is concerned, the petitioner seems to have violated the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, but however, no charge was framed against the accused for the said offence. There is no need to discuss the other evidence on record, because the occurring of accident and sustaining of injuries of prosecution witnesses and death of four persons, registering of the case, preparing of panchanama at the time of scene of offence etc. are not in dispute. 12. Normally when there is a loss of human life, particularly more than one death, it causes prejudices. It is necessary to avoid being influenced by the prejudice arising out of the loss of human life. are not in dispute. 12. Normally when there is a loss of human life, particularly more than one death, it causes prejudices. It is necessary to avoid being influenced by the prejudice arising out of the loss of human life. Whenever a death occurs in a motor accident in particular where there are more number of deaths the same some times influence and cause some prejudice and the same should be avoided otherwise there will not be proper appreciation of evidence and may result in doing injuries. In case of Subba Rao V State1953 Crl.L.J 643 it was held as follows: In such cases it is necessary to avoid being influenced by the prejudice arising out of the loss of life, which is the dominant factor in accident cases. In a case Syed Akbar V State of Karnataka Air 1979 Sc 1848 , the Apex Court held that the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment. There may be error of judgment when sudden breaks have to be applied. How much force is to be applied while applying the sudden breaks in a given situation may not be correctly estimated and there may be error of Judgment. When some body suddenly crosses the road or cyclist falls in front of the vehicle or a cattle run across the road, the drivers may not be in a position to avoid the accidents. Therefore, all the facts and circumstances should be taken into consideration before convicting an accused for the offences under Section 304-A or 338 IPC. Before a conviction can be sustained under Section 304-A a very high degree of negligence must be proved. Negligence which amount to recklessness and utter indifference to the consequences and to the rules of the road must be established. Mere driving at high speed or some sort of negligence, which is not criminal rashness or negligence may not prove the ingredients of Section 304-A IPC. Simple, lack of care may result in civil liability, but by itself may not constitute criminal negligence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 13. Mere driving at high speed or some sort of negligence, which is not criminal rashness or negligence may not prove the ingredients of Section 304-A IPC. Simple, lack of care may result in civil liability, but by itself may not constitute criminal negligence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 13. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the Courts below have not taken into consideration of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, therefore, the findings of the Courts below appears to be not based on record and therefore, liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the conviction and sentences passed against the petitioner by the Courts below for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC are hereby set aside allowing the Criminal Revision case.