ORDER This revision has been filed challenging the Judgment dated 3-2-2004 in Crl.A.No. 50 of 2002 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 8-2-2002, passed by the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa in C.C.No. 109 of 2000 convicting the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and 3381PC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-AIPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week for the offence punishable under Section 134(a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act, was confirmed. However, the appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3381PC. 2. The petitioner herein shall be referred as accused hereinafter for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this revision are as follows: The accused is a resident of Kadapa and driver of the crime vehicle bearing No. A.P. 04 C 6995. The said jeep was proceeding from Ramapuram towards Kadapa. B.Das P.W 2, T. Subbamma-P.W 3, B. Gangulamma - P.W. 4, S. Mohammad Ghouse - P.W. 5, Kaveti Narasimhulu (hereafter referred as deceased No.1), Shaik Khader Basha, (hereinafter referred as deceased No.2) were traveling in the jeep driven by the accused. P.W. 1-M. Raja Naik is the driver of Jeep bearing No. AP04 T 6465, which was proceeding from Raichoti to Kadapa. The jeep driven by the accused was proceeding behind the Jeep driven by P.W. 1. When the jeep of P.W1 reached Maddimadugu bridge he found a tanker lorry coming in opposite direction and moved his jeep to the left side of the road and suddenly applied breaks. The accused who was driving his jeep at high speed could not control the jeep and consequently his jeep dashed against the jeep driven by P. W. 1 from its behind. The jeep of P.W. 1 feel on its left side. The jeep driven by the accused rolled on the road and fell in nearby field. P.W. 1 and the above referred witnesses and others sustained injuries. The jeep of P.W. 1 feel on its left side. The jeep driven by the accused rolled on the road and fell in nearby field. P.W. 1 and the above referred witnesses and others sustained injuries. Both the deceased i.e. Kaveti Narsimulu and Shaik Khader Basha died as a result of injuries sustained by them. 4. P.W. 1 proceeded to C.K. Dinne Police Station and presented Ex. P-1 report. 5. P.W. 10-Sirajuddin received Ex. P-1 complaint from P.W. 1 and basing on the same registered a case in Crime No. 32 of 2000 under Section 338, 304-A IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with 187 of MV Act and issued FIR - Ex. P-9. Then he visited the Government Hospital, Kadapa and examined P .Ws. 2 to 10 and recorded their statements. Then he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch-Ex. P-10. P.W. 15 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who examined both the vehicles involved in the accident and opined that the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles. P .Ws. 2 to 5 are the injured witnesses. P.W. 6 is the doctor, who examined P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 and issued wound certificates in respect of the injuries sustained by those witnesses. P.W. 7is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased - Kaveti Narsimhulu and issued postmortem certificate in Ex. P-5. P.W. 8 is another doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Nos. 2- Shaik Khader Basha and issued Ex. P-6 - postmortem certificate. P.W. 9 is the Radiologist, who had taken X-rays of B.Das-P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. P.W. 11 after verifying the investigation done by P.W. 12 - K. Ravi Kumar, S.1. and after completing investigation laid charge sheet against the accused. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined P.Ws. 1 to 15andgot marked Exs. P-1 toP-12. D.W.1 was examined and Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of the accused. 6. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated supra, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction. 7. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined P.Ws. 1 to 15andgot marked Exs. P-1 toP-12. D.W.1 was examined and Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of the accused. 6. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated supra, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction. 7. Smt. P. Rajani, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accident occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the accused, but as a result of confusion of P. W. 1, who applied sudden breaks on seeing oil tanker coming from opposite direction. Her main submission is that when some other vehicle is involved and there is contributory negligence, the accused cannot be held responsible for the accident. It is her submission that when sudden breaks are applied it is difficult for the driver to avoid the accident. It is further submitted that according to P.W. 2, P.W. 1 had shown the hand, giving signal to the accident but P.W. 1 did not speak about the same. It is also her submission that mere driving of a vehicle at high speed cannot lead to the inference of rash and negligent driving. She has also relied on a decision in State of Karnataka v. Satish 1998 SCC (Crl.) 1508 and also relied on a decision in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616 (v 52 c 275) wherein it was held that to constitute an offence under Section 304-A IPC death must be direct result of the rash or negligent act of accused and the act must be efficient cause without intervention of another's negligence and it must be the causa causans. She has also relied upon a case in Suruvu Parshaiah v. State of A.P. 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 182 (A.P.) = 2006 Crl. L.J. 824 wherein it was held that the Courts are not expected to be prejudiced or influenced by ghastiliness of the accident. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses 2 to 4 clinchingly esablish that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at high speed since beginning their journey and that in spite of their request he did not heed to their advise and that the vehicle was vibrating and this shows the speed at which the accused was driving the vehicle. It is his submission that when the driver of the vehicle proceeding ahead of the vehicle of the accused showed the hand by giving signal to slow down, the accused failed to slow down his vehicle and consequently the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the accused and there is nothing to interfere with the Judgments of the Courts below. 9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the accused had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and what is the effect of applying sudden breaks by P.W.1? 10. It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the accused was driving the vehicle at high speed and there cannot be any doubt about the same. P.Ws. 2 to4 whotraveled in the jeep driven by the accused and who are injured witnesses have categorically deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle at high speed. However, admittedly, there is involvement of another jeep in this accident. Admittedly, the jeep driven by P.W. 1 was proceeding ahead of the jeep driven by the accused. Even according to P.W. 1, atanker lorry was coming from opposite direction and he applied sudden breaks on seeing the tanker lorry. In the cross-examination P.W. 1 admitted that he applied breaks due to fear when he saw the tanker. Admittedly, it is a double width road and two vehicles can pass through without any difficulty. P.W.1 admitted that since it is a double width road it was possible to take his vehicle towards left side and give side to the vehicle coming from opposite direction. 11. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that he became confused and got fear on seeing the tanker lorry. When it is a double width road there was no necessity for P.W. 1 to apply sudden breaks. The accused could not have anticipated that P.W. 1 would apply sudden breaks. Since it is a double width road. Thus, there is involvement of another driver i.e. P.W. 1 in the accident. The main reason for the accident it appears to be applying of sudden breaks by P.W. 1. Of course, the accused was also driving the vehicle at high speed and he could not control his jeep. Admittedly, there are no mechanical defects in the vehicles driven by P.W. 1 and the accused. The main reason for the accident it appears to be applying of sudden breaks by P.W. 1. Of course, the accused was also driving the vehicle at high speed and he could not control his jeep. Admittedly, there are no mechanical defects in the vehicles driven by P.W. 1 and the accused. In view of the above discussion, it has to be held that the death of both deceased appears to be not as a direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Though, on the facts the decision relied on by the counsel for the accused in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla 's case appears to be not applicable since the said judgment arises out of a fire accident. However, the principle laid down in the decision is relevant to the extent that the death in an offence of Section 304-A IPC require that the cause of death must be direct or proximate result of the rash and negligent act of the accused. In State of Karnataka 's case it has to be held that mere driving the vehicle at high speed does not prove the negligence or rashness by itself. In that decision it was held as follows: Merely because the truck was being driven ata "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by involing the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by involing the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure.". 12. In this accident two persons died and some others injured. It is a ghastly accident. However, ghastliness of accident should not cause prejudice to the Court. The Court should appreciate the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether an offence under Section 304 I PC has been made out or not. The prosecution should prove in a charge under Section 304-A IPC that the accused was guilty of rashness and negligence in utter indifference to consequences. 13. When it is a double width road or a national High way generally the drivers maintain the speed. It is their duty to slow down the vehicle as when they enter into the outskirts of a village or town . They must observe on coming vehicles and persons along the road and as and when require they must be in a position to control the vehicle. In villages or towns persons may be walking along the road or some times they may suddenly cross the road. The cattle may also cross the road. Therefore, the drivers should be careful while entering into the outskirts of villages or town. But when the drivers are driving on National High Ways or on main roads they cannot be found fault for driving the vehicle at speed. Therefore, mere driving the vehicle at high speed cannot be said to be a rash and negligent driving within the ambit of Section 304-A or 338 IPC. Whenever there is intervention of third party on the national highway or main road such as sudden cross by a person or cattle or a scootarist or sudden application of breaks by the driver proceeding ahead of the vehicle involved in the accident, the evidence in such case has to be carefully examined and reasonable conclusions have to be drawn. Whenever there is intervention of third party on the national highway or main road such as sudden cross by a person or cattle or a scootarist or sudden application of breaks by the driver proceeding ahead of the vehicle involved in the accident, the evidence in such case has to be carefully examined and reasonable conclusions have to be drawn. The Courts below ought to have considered how far the accused is responsible for causing the accident and whether he had driving the vehicle with utter disregard to the consequences and whether he could have anticipated the accident and whether there are some other factors in occurring the accident. 14. The Courts below seems to have not considered the above aspects in proper perspective. Therefore, the conclusions reached by those Courts appears to be not based on proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, they are perverse and liable to be set aside. There are some other minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses whish are trivial in nature and therefore, there is no need to discuss the same. 15. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgments are set aside and consequently the conviction and sentences passed against the accused are set aside. 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the judgments of the Courts below. The petitioner/accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted thereof. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid by the petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him.