JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved with such judgment and order of conviction, the accused has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the ground that learned trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in convicting him and has not considered the fact that the witnesses have improved their version and have stated facts, in their deposition, which were not mentioned before police, at the time of recording of their statement by the police. He has also contended that there was no motive on the part of the accused and it was really an accident as there were number of persons in the tempo, they were enjoying as there was festival of Holi and, in joyous mood they came on one side of the tempo and as there was sloppy road, the tempo turned turtle and there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the accused. He has prayed to allow present appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment. He, however, admitted that due to fear of mob attacking him, he ran away from the place of accident. 2. On registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer started investigation. During the investigation, the accused was arrested and the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of various witnesses and prepared necessary panchnama thereof and got documentary evidence. 3. After completion of investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class for the alleged offences. Thereafter, as the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it was registered as Sessions Case No.27 of 2011. 4. The charge against the accused came to be framed by the learned Sessions Judge at Exhibit 5 for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial. 5. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses. 1. Dr. Rakeshkumar Ambalal Tadavi Exhibit 8 2. Dr. Sandeepkumar Balvantrai Vasava Exhibit 15 3. Panch Witness Muljibhai Bamaniyabhai Vasava Exhibit 35 4. Panch witness Jesingbhai Amarsing Vasava Exhibit 37 5. Panch Witness Surmabhai Shoknabhai Vasava Exhibit 39 6. Complainant Rameshbhai Maragiyabhai Vasava Exhibit 40 7. Dr. Shaileshkumar Sursing Vasava Exhibit 42 8. Mahendrabhai Chimanbhai Vasava Exhibit 64 9. Bhangdabhai Tuliyabhai Vasava Exhibit 65 10. Dr. Sandeepkumar Balvantrai Vasava Exhibit 15 3. Panch Witness Muljibhai Bamaniyabhai Vasava Exhibit 35 4. Panch witness Jesingbhai Amarsing Vasava Exhibit 37 5. Panch Witness Surmabhai Shoknabhai Vasava Exhibit 39 6. Complainant Rameshbhai Maragiyabhai Vasava Exhibit 40 7. Dr. Shaileshkumar Sursing Vasava Exhibit 42 8. Mahendrabhai Chimanbhai Vasava Exhibit 64 9. Bhangdabhai Tuliyabhai Vasava Exhibit 65 10. Falsing Ubadiyabhai Vasava Exhibit 66 11. Kalidas Jatarbhai Vasava Exhibit 67 12. Vijaybhai Mangabhai Vasava Exhibit 68 13. Khansing Govaliyabhai Vasava Exhibit 69 14. Kagadiyabhai Khatariyabhai Vasava Exhibit 70 15. Vithalbhai Govaliyabhai Vasava Exhibit 71 16. Rajendrabhai Singabhai Vasava Exhibit 72 17. Jatarbhai Babiyabhai Vasava Exhibit 73 18. Dipsing Fatesing Vasava Exhibit 74 19. Karansing Miriyabhai Vasava Exhibit 75 20. Nurjibhai Tidiyabhai Vasava Exhibit 76 21. Bhangadabhai Govaliya Vasava Exhibit 77 22. Shaileshbhai Singabhai Vasava Exhibit 78 23. Jethiyabhai Ubadiyabhai Vasava Exhibit 79 24. Kaliyabhai Govaliyabhai Vasava Exhibit 80 25. Dipsing Ramjibhai Vasava Exhibit 81 26. Rameshbhai Chimanbhai Vasava Exhibit 82 27. Arvindbhai Diveliyabhai Vasava Exhibit 83 28. Khansingbhai Narsinhbhai Vasava Exhibit 84 29. Asmitabhai Somabhai Vasava Exhibit 85 30. Muljibhai Jadiyabhai Vasava Exhibit 86 31. Soniyabhai Jatariyabhai Vasava Exhibit 87 32. Kantibhai Pachiyabhai Vasava Exhibit 88 33. Gimbaliyabhai Chhagadabhai Vasava Exhibit 89 34. Jethiyabhai Khatariyabhai Vasava Exhibit 90 35. Ganpatbhai Roopabhai Vasava Exhibit 91 36. Manchhibhai Bhangadabhai Vasava Exhibit 92 37. Khalpabhai Roopabhai Vasava Exhibit 93 38. Gopalbhai Gordhanbhai Vasava Exhibit 94 39. PSI A.A. Shaikh Exhibit 97 40. PSI J.D. Dangarwala Exhibit 99 6. The prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence. Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit 1. Yadi for postmortem 9 2. Inquest Panchnama 10 3. Death Certificate (Form) of deceased Gambhir Maragiya Vasava 11 4. Death Certificate (Form) of deceased Dharmesh Kumariya Vasava 12 5. Postmortem Report of deceased Gambhir Maragiya Vasava 13 6. Postmortem Report of deceased Dharmesh Kumariya Vasava 14 7. Police Yadi 16 8. OPD case papers of Khansing Govaliya Vasava 18 9. OPD case papers of Jurji Tidiya Vasava 19 10. OPD case papers of Dipsing Fatesinh Vasava 20 11. OPD case papers of Jatar Babiya Vasava 21 12. OPD case papers of Rajendra Singabhai Vasava 22 13. Singa Maragiya Vasava 23 14. OPD case papers of Karansing Miriya Vasava 24 15. OPD case papers of Bhangda Govaliya Vasava 25 16. OPD case papers of Shailesh Singabhai Vasava 26 17. OPD case papers of Vithal Govaliya Vasava 27 18. OPD case papers of Jatar Babiya Vasava 21 12. OPD case papers of Rajendra Singabhai Vasava 22 13. Singa Maragiya Vasava 23 14. OPD case papers of Karansing Miriya Vasava 24 15. OPD case papers of Bhangda Govaliya Vasava 25 16. OPD case papers of Shailesh Singabhai Vasava 26 17. OPD case papers of Vithal Govaliya Vasava 27 18. OPD case papers of Kalidas Jatar Vasava 28 19. OPD case papers of Vijay Mangabhai Vasava 29 20. OPD case papers of Kadagiya Khatariya Vasava 30 21. OPD case papers of Fulsing Ubadiya Vasava 31 22. OPD case papers of Bhangda Tuliya Vasava 32 23. OPD case papers of Mahendra Chimanbhai Vasava 33 24. OPD case papers of Nilesh Kagadiya Vasava 34 25. Inquest Panchnama 36 26. Panchnama of scene of offence 38 27. Complaint 41 28. Injury Certificate 43 29. OPD case papers of Kaliya Govaliya Vasava 44 30. OPD case papers of Dipsing Ramji Vasava 45 31. OPD case papers of Ramesh Chimanbhai Vasava 46 32. OPD case papers of Rajendra Kaliya Vasava 47 33. OPD case papers of Arvind Diveliya Vasava 48 34. OPD case papers of Vikram Shankarbhai Vasava 49 35. OPD case papers of Khansing Narsinh Vasava 50 36. OPD case papers of Kantilal Pachiya Vasava 51 37. OPD case papers of Asmir Somabhai Vasava 52 38. OPD case papers of Soma Champala Vasava 53 39. OPD case papers of Fatesing Badaliya Vasava 54 40. OPD case papers of Bharat Singabhai Vasava 55 41. OPD case papers of Gimbiya Chhagada Vasava 56 42. OPD case papers of Devji Bhangdabhai Vasava 57 43. OPD case papers of Jethiya Chhagda Vasava 58 44. OPD case papers of Tetiya Khatariya Vasava 59 45. OPD case papers of Jagdish Ramanbhai Vasava 60 46. OPD case papers of Jethiya Ubadiya Vasava 61 47. OPD case papers of Mulaji Jadiyabhai Vasava 62 48. FSL Mobile Report 63 49. FIR registered 95 50. Note of Station Diary 96 7. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, considering the incriminating evidence against the accused, further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein also he has stated that false evidence has been created against him and he is innocent. 8. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, learned Sessions Judge has ultimately passed the order of conviction and sentence, as referred to herein above. 9. 8. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, learned Sessions Judge has ultimately passed the order of conviction and sentence, as referred to herein above. 9. Heard learned counsel Mr.Jitendra Sheth for the appellant-accused and learned APP Mr.Shruti Pathak for the respondent-State at length. Perused the material placed on record and the decisions cited at bar. 10. Learned counsel, Mr.Sheth for the accused has submitted that as per the prosecution the accident had happened at late night. He has stated that in the alleged incident, the tempo turned turtle and that the road is sloppy one and during the said accident two persons have died and 40 persons have been injured. According to him, this was really an accident and there was no any negligence or rashness on the part of the accused. While referring to the evidence of witness, learned counsel Shri Sheth has also contended that the witnesses, who were travelling in said tempo have made improvements in their depositions and the improvements have been proved through cross-examination of the investigating officer. While referring to oral and documentary evidence, learned counsel has also submitted that as there was a festival of Holi, the people travelling in tempo were shouting and at the curve, as all the people slided to one side of the tempo, the tempo turned turtle. He has also contended that for the said fact, the appellant-accused could not be held responsible, as it was an accident in real sense. He has also submitted that no proper investigation has been carried out by the investigating officer and as per the report of FSL, no fault of accused could be found. He also contended that there is evidence on record to show that there was a slop and that too in a curved nature. According to him, learned trial Court has not considered all the aspects in its proper perspective and has committed serious error of facts and law in convicting the accused. He has prayed to allow present appeal by quashing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He has relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions. (1) Emperor v. Khan Mohammad Sher Mohammad reported in AIR 1937 Bombay 96. (2) State of Karnataka v. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 . 11. He has prayed to allow present appeal by quashing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He has relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions. (1) Emperor v. Khan Mohammad Sher Mohammad reported in AIR 1937 Bombay 96. (2) State of Karnataka v. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 . 11. Per contra, Ms.Pathak, learned APP vehemently submitted that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has committed no error of facts and law in convicting the accused and imposing the sentence upon him. She has submitted that the contradiction, if any, made by the witnesses in their depositions, is minor in nature, and those contradictions may not be taken into consideration. She has also submitted that the persons, who have been examined in this case by the prosecution are all the victims, who were travelling in tempo. She has also invited the attention of the Court to the deposition of the witnesses and has submitted that the witnesses have clearly stated in their evidence that at the relevant time, the tempo was being driven in rash and negligent manner and with high speed. She has further submitted that as per the injured witnesses, they have shouted and advised the accused to drive the tempo at a moderate speed, but those requests have not been taken into consideration by the driver and he had driven the tempo in rash and negligent manner, which has resulted in death of two young persons and injury to 40 persons. She has vehemently submitted that learned trial Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has properly convicted the accused and imposed the sentence upon him. Regarding decisions cited by the accused side, learned APP, Ms.Pathak has submitted that the facts of the cited decisions and the facts of the present case are different and, therefore, these decisions are not applicable in the present case. While relying upon the following decisions, she has prayed to dismiss present appeal and confirm the impugned judgment of learned trial Court. (1) Gulazarilal v. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 4 SCC 583 . 11.1 She has also submitted that if there is defective investigation, then that fact itself cannot vitiate the prosecution case and the laxity on the part of the police cannot be considered as fatal to the prosecution case. (1) Gulazarilal v. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 4 SCC 583 . 11.1 She has also submitted that if there is defective investigation, then that fact itself cannot vitiate the prosecution case and the laxity on the part of the police cannot be considered as fatal to the prosecution case. She has relied upon the decision in the case of Karan Singh v. State of Haryana and Another reported in (2013) 2 SCC 529, wherein it is observed as under:- “14. Omissions made on the part of the Investigating Officer, where the prosecution succeeds in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubt by way of adducing evidence, particularly that of eye-witnesses and other witnesses, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, for the reason that every discrepancy present in the investigation does not weigh upon the court to the extent that it necessarily results in the acquittal of accused, unless it is proved that the investigation was held in such manner that it is dubbed as a dishonest or guided investigation, which will exonerate the accused. (See: Sonali Mukherjee v. Union of India, (2010) 15 SCC 25 ; Mohd. Imran Khan v. State Government (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 ; Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1403 ; Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532 ; Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2012 SC 3539 ; and Hiralal Pandey & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 2541 ). Thus, unless lapses made on the part of Investigating authorities are such, so as to cast a reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution, or seriously prejudice the defence of the accused, the court would not set aside the conviction of the accused merely on the ground of tainted investigation.” 12. Thus, unless lapses made on the part of Investigating authorities are such, so as to cast a reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution, or seriously prejudice the defence of the accused, the court would not set aside the conviction of the accused merely on the ground of tainted investigation.” 12. In view of the provision contains in Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in an appeal from a conviction, the Appellate Court can (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial; (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same. 13. It is well settled that it is the duty of the Appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even it can be relied upon then whether the prosecution can be said to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the Appellate Court in drawing inference from proved admitted facts. 14. It is also well settled that the law clearly expects the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits not merely by perusing the reasoning of the Trial Court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the Trial Court are consistent with the materials on record. 15. In the case of Emperor v. Khanmohammad Shermohammad (supra), Bombay High Court has at page 98, observed as under:- “One has to remember that driving motor cars has become an essential part of human activities, and it is impossible to avoid certain number of accidents. In my view, it is no part of duty of the Courts to punish with savage sentences every motorist, who has the misfortune to have an accident, which results in a loss of life, even though the accident be due to an error of judgment on the part of the driver. In my view, it is no part of duty of the Courts to punish with savage sentences every motorist, who has the misfortune to have an accident, which results in a loss of life, even though the accident be due to an error of judgment on the part of the driver. The circumstances of each case must be considered in imposing sentence.” 16. In the case of State of Karnataka (supra) in paragraph 4, Honourable Apex Court has observed as under:- “……In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of “rashness” or “negligence” could be drawn by invoking the maxim “res ipsa loquitu””………” 17. The case of Gularilal v. State of Haryana (supra), appears to be a case of murder and the concerned Court has convicted the accused on the basis of evidence, which was in the nature of dying declaration and evidence of other witnesses, the plea of defective investigation was raised. On that point, it was observed that laxity on the part of the police makes no difference if there is consistent evidence in the form of dying declaration and the statements made by the deceased and the witnesses. 18. Considering the contentions raised by both the sides and on perusal of evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that on the date of accident, at late night, tempo bearing registration no.GJ-6-V-8851 turned turtle and in such accident, two young persons have died and many persons, who were travelling in said tempo got injuries and they have been treated by the doctors for such injuries. The happening of accident is not disputed. At the same time, though during trial the accused has put up defence that the witnesses could not identify the person, who was driving the tempo, but in the appeal memo filed in this Court, the appellant has categorically stated that it was the fear of mob attacking him, forced him to run away from the place of accident. Now, considering the evidence on record, the only question is as to whether there was any negligence or rashness on the part of the accused and whether he was responsible for the injuries to various witnesses and for causing death of two young persons. 19. Now, considering the evidence on record, the only question is as to whether there was any negligence or rashness on the part of the accused and whether he was responsible for the injuries to various witnesses and for causing death of two young persons. 19. Now, on perusal of the evidence of Dr.Rakeshkumar Ambalal Tadavi, PW-1, Exh.8, he has performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Dharmeshkumar Kumariya Vasava, aged 15 years and Gambhir Maragiya Vasava and found various injuries, as stated in column-7 of the postmortem report and all the injuries were antemortem and they have died due to various serious injuries on all the organs of the body. He has produced the papers and has stated that as per the history, he has received, that both have died due to injuries sustained by them in the vehicular accident. 19.1 During his cross-examination, he has admitted that both the deadbodies were sent by the Dediyapada Police Station and the injuries mentioned by him can be caused by turning of tempo as well as due to other accident. He has admitted that, if any person travelling in a vehicle loses his control and he fell down from moving vehicle, such injuries are possible and death may ensure. Thus, the factum of various injuries to the deceased due to vehicular accident are proved. 20. Dr.Sandipkumar Balvantrai Vasava, PW-2, Exh.15 has categorically stated that on 17.4.2011, he and Dr.Shailesh Vasava, were serving in the Community Health Center as Medical Officer in Dediyapada and at that time, he received a police yadi mentioning therein that 42 persons have got injuries in a vehicular accident. Accordingly, he gave treatment to 17 patients and all have given history to the effect that tempo turned turtle near bus-stand and in such accident they have sustained injuries. While narrating individual injuries to 17 persons, he has stated that all the injuries were fresh injuries and he has given treatment as outdoor patients to them and thereafter they were referred to government hospital, Rajpipla and he has telephonically informed the police. 20.1 During his cross-examination he has admitted that on the said date, he has also examined other patients, in addition to the patients as referred to herein above. 20.1 During his cross-examination he has admitted that on the said date, he has also examined other patients, in addition to the patients as referred to herein above. He has admitted that the injuries found on the injured could be possible even if roof falls on the head of the injured and such injuries could be possible if mob tries to run away and if they fall on the land. Thus, the factum of injury to patients and history given by them and treatment given to them are proved. 21. Dr.Shaileshkumar Vasava, PW-7, Exh.42, has stated that on 17.4.2011, he and Dr.Sandip Vasava were serving as Medical Officer in the Community Health Center, and at that time, he received police yadi informing that 42 persons have got injuries in a vehicular accident and the patients have also narrated the history to the effect that they have sustained injuries in a vehicular accident, wherein a tempo turned turtle near bus stand of Bal Gav. He has examined 20 persons and provided them primary treatment for the injuries sustained by them. According to his opinion, the injuries sustained by them are possible in a vehicular accident. He has also stated that he has given them treatment as outdoor patients and, thereafter, referred them to government hospital, Rajpipla. 21.1 In cross-examination, he has admitted the facts that on the date of examination of aforesaid patient, he has also examined other patients and as per his opinion, such injuries could be possible if there are many number of persons in a mob trying to run away and if somebody falls on ground, he could sustain such injuries. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it also appears that various injuries have been caused to the patients and he has given them treatment. 22. Now, considering the evidence of all the injured witnesses, which are on record, it appears that they have categorically stated similar facts as to the tempo being driven by the accused and it was in over speed and, their request to lower down the speed was not paid heed by the accused and the accused was driving it at excessive speed. All of them have deposed that due to full speed, the driver lost control over the vehicle and due to that tempo turned turtle and they all have got injuries. All of them have deposed that due to full speed, the driver lost control over the vehicle and due to that tempo turned turtle and they all have got injuries. 22.1 During their cross-examination, they have admitted when they were passing through Anoti Single road is a single strip road and it is having curve. However, they have denied the suggestion that it was a sloppy road having curve there. They have admitted that at the time of accident, all the persons have slipped on one side of the tempo and due to that, the tempo turned turtle. The evidence of the injured clearly suggests that at the time accident, the tempo was in high speed and the place where the accident has occurred, is sloppy one and having curve. 23. It appears from Exh.96, which is an entry made in relevant register, that the persons travelling in a tempo as there was festival of Holi and near the Bal Gav, there was a sloppy road and while going down, the driver has driven the tempo at high speed and because of his negligence, the tempo turned turtle and in that accident, various persons have sustained injuries and two of them have died. 24. Panch witness of the panchnama, Jesingbhai Amarsing Vasava, PW-4, Exh.37, and Surambhai Suknabhai Vasava, PW-5, Exh.39, in their deposition have not supported the version of the prosecution that the panchnama at Exh.38 was done in their presence. However, they have admitted their signatures on the said panchnama, but they have not supported the basic version of the prosecution. They have been declared as hostile by the prosecution and they have been cross-examined also. However, during the course of examination of police witnesses, contents of the panchnama have been proved. Therefore, on perusal of Exh.38, i.e. the panchnama of place of occurrence, it is found that the tempo turned turtle near bus station of Bal Gav and the road is of 16 ft. width, however, exact facts regarding the road being sloppy or curvy are not narrated. 25. It appears from report of FSL officer, M.N.Trivedi, Scientific Officer, FSL, who has examined the place of occurrence, has stated that he has paid visit to the place on 21.3.2011. width, however, exact facts regarding the road being sloppy or curvy are not narrated. 25. It appears from report of FSL officer, M.N.Trivedi, Scientific Officer, FSL, who has examined the place of occurrence, has stated that he has paid visit to the place on 21.3.2011. In his report, it is specifically stated that near bus stand of Bal Gav, there is sloppy road and blood stains were noticed on road and as the time has elapsed, no brake marks or any other marks have been found. It appears from this note that the officer has made specific observation in his report, Exh.63, that necessary process through RTO officer be carried out. However, on perusal of entire material on record, it appears that no such inspection by RTO Inspector has been carried out to find out as to whether there was any mechanical defect in the tempo or not. 26. It is pertinent to note that version of all the individuals, who are injured is to the effect that at the relevant time, tempo was in high speed. It is also found from the evidence of the injured that the road was sloppy one and there was curve. It also came on record that almost 70 to 80 persons were travelling in tempo. Further no mark of application of brake is found on road. It also came on record that at the relevant point of time, all persons were in tempo have slipped to one side of the tempo. It is possible that due to such event the tempo might have turned turtle. It has also come in evidence of the persons travelling in the tempo that they had shouted and instructed the driver to drive the tempo in proper manner as he was driving it in rash manner. However, when a vehicle is in moving condition at a certain speed, the driver may not be able to listen to the shouts of the passengers and, therefore, evidence of these witnesses cannot be believed as a proof against the accused. 27. On appreciating the oral evidence of the injured witnesses, it is clearly found that every witness has emphasized on the fact that tempo was being driven at a high speed and due to that driver has lost control over tempo near the place of occurrence. 27. On appreciating the oral evidence of the injured witnesses, it is clearly found that every witness has emphasized on the fact that tempo was being driven at a high speed and due to that driver has lost control over tempo near the place of occurrence. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of Honourable Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader And Ors. vs Nausheer Cama And Ors. Reported in AIR 1975 SC 1324 , (1975) 4 SCC 122 , wherein it was observed that main criteria for deciding whether driving which relate to accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed but the width of the road, density of the traffic etc. Further in the case of State of Karnataka v. Satish (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that merely because truck was being driven at a “high speed” does not bespeak of either “negligence” or “rashness” by itself. “High Speed” is a relative term and criminality is not to be presumed subject of course to some statutory exceptions. In absence of any material on record, no presumption of “rashness” or “negligence” could be drawn by invoking the maxim “ras ipsa locutar”. 28. In view of above two decisions and on perusal of aforesaid observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, if we peruse the material on record, it is found that the ingredients of “negligence” “rashness” are not proved by the prosecution in this case. It appears from the impugned judgment that learned trial Court has relied on the maxim of “race ipsa locutar” on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution but when the necessary ingredients regarding rashness or negligence is not brought on record, mere fact of high speed is not sufficient to connect the accused with alleged crime. Learned trial Court has not appreciated these facts and legal point and thereby has committed error of facts and law in convicting the accused and sentencing him for various offences. Impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law, especially in view of pronouncement of aforesaid two decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is required to be set aside. 29. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law, especially in view of pronouncement of aforesaid two decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is required to be set aside. 29. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2011 dated 05.10.2011 for the offence under Sections 304, 304(A), 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Fine, if any, paid to be refunded to the accused. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.