JUDGMENT 1. - Babu Lal son of Ram Singh has preferred the present revision petition I under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to challenge the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13th February, 2001 rendered by Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawal Madhopur whereby petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:- under section 279 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and In default of payment thereof he has to undergo 15 days simple Imprisonment; Under Section 337 IPC: Six months rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 400/- and In default of payment thereof he has to undergo 7 days simple Imprisonment; Under Section 304-A IPC : One year rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and In default of payment thereof he has to undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. A further prayer has been made that the judgment dated 01st August, 2001 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawal Madhopur whereby he had dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and affirmed the above sentences be also set aside. 3. Briefly stated, In the present case FIR (Ex.P/4) was lodged by Hansraj (PW-2). In the FIR so lodged complainant has stated that he alongwith his grand mother Panchi was going on cycle from his village Khilnchlpur to Aalanpur to meet his relations. At about 9.30 A.M. when they reached near the culvert of Amrashwar Mahadev, one truck of the forest department bearing No. R.J.U.J. 7233 came from the opposite side and the same was driven by Babulal Nal at a very high speed in a negligent manner. It is stated that truck came on the kachha berm of the road and hit the cycle of the petitioner, due to which, grant-mother who was sitting on the carrier of the cycle fell on the road, suffered injuries and died later on. It was further stated that driver of the truck was known to the complainant as he used to daily drive the truck on the same route. 4. The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and the petitioner was charged by the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawai Madhopur for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC. 5. 4. The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and the petitioner was charged by the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawai Madhopur for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC. 5. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 6. Prosecution examined Ramphool as PW-1. This witness has stated that five years ago he was coming from Khilnchipur on a cycle to Aalanpur. At that time, another co-villager Kajod was also coming from the cycle. When they reached near the culvert of Amrashwar Mahadev, a truck came from behind, alighted from the road to the kachha passage and had collided with the cycle of Hansraj, due to which his mother Panchi fell at the spot and died. It is stated that truck was driven by the petitioner who is present in Court. 7. Shri Rlnesh Gupta along with Ms. Chandrakala, advocate appearing for the petitioner has stated that In oxamlnatlon-ln-chlef, Ramphool (PW/1) has nowhere stated that petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Counsel however, submits that In cross-examination Ramphool stated that truck was coming on a high speed but he cannot state as to what was the speed of the truck. Complainant Hansraj appeared as PW-2, he also reiterated as to what was stated In the FIR Ex.P/4. It Is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that In the statement In the Court, witness has nowhere stated that the truck was driven by the petitioner rashly or negligently rather, It has been stated by the witness that the truck came on a high speed and had hit the cycle. Kajod another co-villager appeared as PW-3 and he stated that truck was coming on a high speed and had hit the cycle of Hansraj on which Panchl deceased was sitting on a carrier. 8. PW-4 Blharllal stated that on 16th November, 1989, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotwali and written complaint Ex.P/4 was presented before him. On the basis of which, he had registered a formal FIR Ex.P/5. PW-5 Bilas stated that In his presence no Panchnama was prepared. PW-6 Dr. R.L. Gupta on 16th November, 1989 had conducted autopsy of the dead body of Panchl and had stated that Injuries suffered by deceased were ante-mortem In nature and were sufficient to cause death In the ordinary course of nature. 9. PW-5 Bilas stated that In his presence no Panchnama was prepared. PW-6 Dr. R.L. Gupta on 16th November, 1989 had conducted autopsy of the dead body of Panchl and had stated that Injuries suffered by deceased were ante-mortem In nature and were sufficient to cause death In the ordinary course of nature. 9. PW-7 Sagarmal stated that on 16th November, 1989 he was posted as Sub-Inspector, Kotwali Dlstt. Sawal Madhopur. He had conducted investigation of the case. This witness has proved various facets of the Investigation. PW-8 Bheru had stated that 10-11 years before the occurrence.(sic.), police had prepared a Panchnama Ex.P/6 and had obtained his thumb impressions. PW-9 Rajendra Prasad had stated that on 28th November, 1989 he had carried mechanical examination of the vehicle and had given a report that engine, gear and steering of the vehicle were in the working order. 10. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating evidence was put to the accused. 11. The accused denied all the circumstances put to him and pleaded false implication. 12. Shri Rinesh Gupta along with Ms. Chandrakala, advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it has been nowhere put to the accused that the vehicle was driven by him rashly and negligently. 13. Having noticed the evidence led by the prosecution and hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that except statement made by the witnesses that truck was driven by the petitioner at a high speed, nothing else has been stated by the witnesses. They have not even stated that petitioner was driving the truck rashly or negligently. 14. Though witnesses are not required to say specifically that the accused had acted rashly and negligently, suffice it to say, material must be placed before the Court to infer that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver. It has been held by the Courts that mere driving of the vehicle on the fast speed is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. 15. In the present case, neither any rough site plan has been prepared nor site plan has been prepared by the draftsman even spot was not photographed. It has been held by the Courts that mere driving of the vehicle on the fast speed is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. 15. In the present case, neither any rough site plan has been prepared nor site plan has been prepared by the draftsman even spot was not photographed. No visual observations are available with this Court to find whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner or not. 16. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) Page 1508 has held as under:- 4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "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 d 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 invoking 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 oi mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forth- coming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case. (emphasis supplied)Therefore, there is a complete absence on the part of the prosecution to prove negligence and rashness on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle. It is to be noted that in the present case, investigation was conducted in a perfunctory manner. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case. (emphasis supplied)Therefore, there is a complete absence on the part of the prosecution to prove negligence and rashness on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle. It is to be noted that in the present case, investigation was conducted in a perfunctory manner. Investigating Officer has taken no pains to get the sits photographed or prove photographs of the spot of the incident, or prepare site plan at the spot, therefore the visual observations are not available wilt this Court to arrive at a finding that accident has occurred due to rash an: negligent driving of the petitioner. 17. Consequently, taking the nature of prosecution evidence an perfunctory nature of investigation carried in the present case, this Court shall extend benefit of doubt to the petitioner. 18. Resultantly, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugns judgments rendered by the two Courts below are set aside and petitioner acquitted of the charges by granting benefit of doubt.Revision Allowed. *******