JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against acquittal of the respondent pronounced vide judgment dated 4.10.2007 in criminal case No. 86/2 of 2002 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) in case FIR No. 121 of 2002 registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC read with Sections 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act in P.S. Bilaspur (H.P.) 2. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and I have also gone through the record. 3. Brief case of the prosecution is that on 6.4.2002 at about 9.45 PM, respondent/accused was driving his scooter on the National Highway No. 21 near HPMC Juice Bar, Nihal Sector, Bilaspur in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and personal safety of others and had struck his scooter against car No. HP-35B-2155 being driven by PW2 Chetan Kumar. After accident, on the basis of statement made by PW2 Chetan Kumar, FIR was registered and investigation was carried out by PW6 ASI Gautam Chand, who had seized the vehicles involved in the accident and prepared spot map and recorded statements of witnesses. He also obtained the MLC and X-ray and treatment slip of accused from hospital and after completion of investigation, on finding prima facie complicity of accused in commission of offence, challan was presented in Court. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent, hence appeal. 4. Prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. After recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondent did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. PW1 Anil Kumar, PW2 Chetan Kumar, PW3 Anish Thakur have been examined as spot eye witnesses. PW2 was driving the car involved in the accident, whereas PW3 Anish was accompanying him in the said vehicle. Whereas, PW1 Anil Kumar is a passersby, who has been examined as an independent witness. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that respondent/accused, coming from Bilaspur side on his scooter was, overtaking a truck in a high speed and after noticing him, the car driver had stopped his vehicle, but scooter had collided with the said car. He has further stated that this accident had happened on account of mistake committed by the scooter driver. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that respondent/accused, coming from Bilaspur side on his scooter was, overtaking a truck in a high speed and after noticing him, the car driver had stopped his vehicle, but scooter had collided with the said car. He has further stated that this accident had happened on account of mistake committed by the scooter driver. In his cross examination, this witness has admitted that when he arrived at the spot, the accident had already taken place and he did not know that after collision with car, scooter was on the right side. He has further admitted that he did not know the fact that scooter was being driven in high speed. In view of his contradictory stand and admissions in the cross examination, this witness cannot be relied and taken into consideration for corroboration of other evidence or for convicting the accused as his presence, at the time of accident, has been refuted by this witness himself in his cross examination. 6. PW2 Chetan has stated that when he was coming on a curve, driving a car, on his side, a scooter came from Bilaspur side and after noticing it, he had slowed down his vehicle by taking it on the extreme left side. But the scooter driver, who was coming in high speed, could not control it and collided with car. Mere high speed, in absence of ingredients of rashness and negligence, cannot be sufficient to convict the accused for criminal rash and negligent act. Whereas, PW3 Anish Thakur has deposed that he was accompanying PW2 Chetan and their car was being driven on left side and at that time, a truck was noticed coming from the opposite side and one scooter came with high speed, which was overtaking the truck, whereupon PW2 had taken his vehicle on extreme left side, but the scooter had collided with car. He has stated that scooter driver was coming on wrong side and accident had taken place on account of his fault. 7. PW6 ASI Gautam Chand has carried out the investigation after lodging the FIR and besides drawing the site map, he had also taken the snaps of the spot. But these snaps are useless as in these photographs, no endeavour has been made by the Investigating Officer to make the entire spot visible. 7. PW6 ASI Gautam Chand has carried out the investigation after lodging the FIR and besides drawing the site map, he had also taken the snaps of the spot. But these snaps are useless as in these photographs, no endeavour has been made by the Investigating Officer to make the entire spot visible. These photographs are either of middle of the road or the number plate of car, involved in accident, but without any background surrounding it so as to ascertain the actual position of vehicles at the time of and after the accident. In his site map, he has indicated the place A1 as a place of the car and A2 as a place where the scooter has been shown lying after the collision with car and this place was at a distance of 8 feet from the car. He has shown the place AX as a place of collision of vehicles but the car has been shown at a distance from that place which indicates that at the time of preparation of spot map, the vehicles were not in its original position, the position at the time of accident. 8. The statements of PW1 and PW2 are also not sufficient to prove the gross negligence of respondent/accused, necessary to establish on record to fasten criminal liability upon him. PW2 as well as PW3 both have stated that scooter driver was coming with high speed. PW2, in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as deposition in Court, has not mentioned anything about the fact that truck was also present on the spot and scooter was overtaking the said truck, whereas PW1 Anil Kumar as well as PW3 Anish Thakur have introduced the story that scooter was overtaking the truck with high speed. PW3 is none-else but the companion of PW2. But he has come with different facts of the case about the manner in which the accident had taken place. It has also come on record that leg of the scooter driver was fractured and he was immediately shifted to the hospital by the people including PW1 Anil Kumar and Investigating Officer in his cross examination has admitted that he had not recorded the statement of respondent/accused but only interrogated him. At the time of arrival of police on the spot, only car driver was present there who lodged the complaint according to his version. At the time of arrival of police on the spot, only car driver was present there who lodged the complaint according to his version. The Investigating Officer has not taken pain to verify the facts from others. 9. The only independent witness relied upon by the prosecution has categorically admitted that he had arrived at the spot after the accident. All these facts coupled with the position of vehicles shown in site plan Ext. PW6/B create doubt about veracity of prosecution with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that where there is doubt, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Evidence to prove rash and negligent act on the part of accused is missing much less to prove gross negligence as required for conviction. Therefore, for want of credible, cogent and reliable evidence establishing the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent/accused at the time of accident, he is entitled for benefit of doubt. There is nothing to suggest that the trial Court has ignored the admissible and reliable evidence and has considered the irrelevant and inadmissible evidence at the time of appreciating the evidence. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Bail/surety bonds furnished by respondent/accused and surety are discharged. Record of the Courts below be sent back.