JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Revision is directed by the petitioner/convict against the judgment/order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Jammu whereby the judgment dated 26.09.2014 rendered by the court of learned Railway Magistrate Jammu convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the commission of offence punishable u/s 304-A RPC, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable u/s 279 RPC and simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence punishable u/s 337 RPC and in default of payment of fine petitioner/convict has been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, has been upheld/confirmed. 2. Being aggrieved of & dissatisfied with the impugned judgments, petitioner has questioned their legality, proprietary and correctness and has sought their setting aside/quashment on the following grounds:- (i) that there is miscarriage of justice as the judgments of both the trial and appellate court have been passed without application of mind and proper appreciation of evidence; (ii) that the trial judge and appellate judge have nowhere taken into consideration the legal aspects as well as the law established on the subject and returned the findings on the judgments mere on suspicion without proper appreciation of evidence, the same suffer from illegality and irregularity as well; (iii) that the cardinal principal of law for basing conviction that evidence leading to conviction should be beyond any doubt has not been taken into consideration and appreciated, since there were inherent contradiction and failure on part of prosecution to connect the accused with the incident as the glaring feature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution amply makes clear that there is nothing on record which could connect the accused/petitioner with the accident, and above all, there is no evidence which could further show that the deceased Smt. Pritam Kour was injured in the said accident and the same has led to her death, as there is nothing on record which could show her injuries at the time of accident, her admission in the GMC or any other Govt. Hospital at Jammu or Pathankot as suggested or any other on record which could suggest her treatment during 10 days; (iv) that the story of prosecution showing that the deceased was injured in the said accident without any record, her treatment for 10 days without any record and subsequently death after 10 days and cause of same attributing to the accused connecting with the accident is highly improbable, and by no stretch of imagination could ever be believed, and thus is an attempt on part of prosecution to falsely implicate petitioner/accused. 3. Sh. Satinder Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner/convict, has sought the reversal/setting aside/quashment of impugned judgments of conviction and has further sought the acquittal of the petitioner/convict on the grounds, that the trial judge erred in his judgment while passing the judgment of conviction on the ground that he did not took into consideration the inherent contradiction which came up during evidence and despite contradiction he returned the judgment contrary to the law established on the subject. It is argued, that the trial judge despite having being shown the lacunas and missing of chain in linking the accused that no medical evidence with regard to the MLC of admission of the deceased in the Hospital since the day of accident upto her death for 10 long days was not considered and appreciated. It is vehemently argued, that the trial judge failed to appreciated the legal aspect of the matter as projected by the defence counsel regarding interested witnesses on spot who could not state their cause of presence on spot besides witnessing the accused on spot and also their story regarding their presence did not inspire confidence to be taken into consideration. 4. Sh. Pawan Dev Singh, Ld. Dy. 4. Sh. Pawan Dev Singh, Ld. Dy. AG appearing for the respondents, has defended the impugned judgments and sought their confirmation by canvassing arguments, that the prosecution has examined as many as twelve (12) witnesses out of listed fourteen (14), the evidence brought on record by the prosecution during the course of trial is cogent, convincing and is reliable as all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution regarding the fact that the accused while driving his Car No. JK02F-9725 rashly and negligently and at high speed from Satwari towards Vikram Chowk, when reached near Convent School Crossing, caused accident with a Scooter No. PCV-4733 in which the Scooter driver PW-1 S. Asha Singh had received simple injuries and the pillion rider namely Pritam Kour unfortunately died. It is argued, that the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution have convincingly proved that the petitioner/accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and at high speed due to which accident occurred, thus, the charge for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304-A RPC are proved against the petitioner/convict beyond any reasonable doubt, petitioner/convict has been rightly convicted by the trial court of Ld. Special Railway Magistrate Sub-Judge (JMIC) Jammu vide impugned judgment dated 26.09.2014 which has been rightly upheld in appeal by the appellate Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Jammu vide impugned judgment dated 30.10.2015. 5. It is pertinent to reiterate here that the case of prosecution has been tried to be proved by the evidence of twelve (12) prosecution witnesses out of the listed fourteen (14) in the charge sheet namely, PW-1 S. Asha Singh (eyewitness), PW-2 S. NarbeerSingh (eyewitness), PW-3 S. Ajeet Singh (witness to Seizure memo of Car & Motorcycle), PW-5 S. Sat Pal Singh (witness to seizure memo of Car & Motorcycle), PW-6 Jarnail Singh (witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes), PW-7 Malkiat Singh (witness to Receipt memo of dead body and clothes), PW-8 Harbans Singh ( witness to Receipt memo of dead body and clothes), PW-9 Tariq Hussain (SRTC Mechanic), PW-10 Doctor Rajinder Thapa (Medical Expert), PW-11 Doctor Mridula Singh (Medical Expert), PW-12 Naresh Kumar (Sapurdnama Memo), PW-13 Nago Ram ASI (I.O.). 6. To prove the charges against the petitioner/convict, the prosecution has adduced the oral as well as the documentary evidence. 6. To prove the charges against the petitioner/convict, the prosecution has adduced the oral as well as the documentary evidence. The prosecution has examined its witnesses as under:- PW No. Name of the Witness Role 1. PW-1 S. Asha Singh Eye witness 2. PW-2 S. Narbeer Singh Eye witness 3. PW-3 S. Ajeet Singh Seizure memo of Car & Motorcycle 4. PW-5 S. Sat Pal Singh Receipt memo of dead body and clothes 5. PW-6 Jarnail Singh Receipt memo of dead body and clothes 6. PW-7 Malkiat Singh Receipt memo of dead body and clothes 7. PW-8 Harbans Singh Receipt memo of dead body and clothes 8. PW-9 Tariq Hussain SRTC Mechanic 9. PW-10 Doctor Rajinder Thapa Medical Expert 10. PW-11 Doctor Mridula Singh Medical Expert 11. PW-12 Naresh Kumar Sapurdnama Memo 12. PW-13 Nago Ram ASI(I.O.) Conducted investigation 7. Before coming to the conclusion whether the prosecution has successfully substantiated the charges against the petitioner/convict beyond hilt, I find it pertinent to give a brief resume of evidence led by the prosecution and reproduced by the trial court. Relevant portions of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are summarized as under:- PW-1 S. Asha Singh (eye-witness) in his deposition before the trial court has deposed, that he knows the accused. The occurrence took place on 19.07.2009 at approximately 8-8:15pm. He alongwith his wife Pritam Kour was going on his scooter from Satwari towards Vikram Chowk. When they reached at Crossing near Convent School, a car bearing No. JK02F-9725 being driven by the accused at a very high speed hit his scooter, due to which his wife fell on the car and she was seriously injured, he too received serious injuries, some persons had picked us from the police of occurrence and took us to hospital. Next day his wife was shifted to Pathankot hospital where she died. Police had recorded his statement. He identifies his signatures on his statement. He had given the same statement to the police which he had given in the Court. In cross examination, has stated that he was driving his scooter at low speed. He was coming from Satwari to Vikram Chowk and accused was also coming from Satwari. The speed of the car was approximately 70-80 kmph. The accident of his wife Pritam Kour occurred on 19th July and she died on 29th July. In cross examination, has stated that he was driving his scooter at low speed. He was coming from Satwari to Vikram Chowk and accused was also coming from Satwari. The speed of the car was approximately 70-80 kmph. The accident of his wife Pritam Kour occurred on 19th July and she died on 29th July. He does not know that beside him, police has recorded the statement of how many persons. He does not know the reason which the Doctor has mentioned regarding death. PW-2 Narbeer Singh (eye-witness) has deposed, that he knows the accused present in the Court. The occurrence took place on 19.07.2009. He was driving his auto from Satwari towards Vikram Chowk. His Uncle (Tayaji) was driving his scooter No. 4733 ahead of his auto. His aunt (Tayi Ji) was sitting on the back seat of the scooter. In the meanwhile a Car No. JK02F-9725 being driven by the accused present in the Court rashly, negligently & at high speed came from Satwari towards Vikram Chowk and caused accident with the scooter. Due to this accident, the scooter driver and pillion rider were seriously injured. On 29.07.2009 his aunt had succumbed to her injuries at Ludiana. His uncle had also received injuries and his uncle had recovered later-on. Police had recorded his statement. In cross examination, he has stated that he is driving Auto for the last 7-8 years. He is the owner of the auto (load carrier) that he drives. He knows the accused because in the market where he works on his load carrier, the accused also works as vegetable vendor. Police had recorded his statement in police station after 2-3 days. PW-3 S. Ajeet Singh (witness to seizure memo of car & motorcycle) has deposed, that he knows the accused present in the court. The occurrence took place on 19.07.2009. He was coming from Satwari towards Vikram Chowk in an auto where he saw Maruti Car No. JK02F-9725 which was being driven by the accused present in the court at high speed. The scooter No. PCV-4733 was being driver ahead of him by the driver Assa Singh. The car had hit the scooter and caused accident and in this accident the driver of the scooter Assa Singh and pillion rider Pritam Kour were injured. The scooter No. PCV-4733 was being driver ahead of him by the driver Assa Singh. The car had hit the scooter and caused accident and in this accident the driver of the scooter Assa Singh and pillion rider Pritam Kour were injured. He had brought both of them to hospital and got them admitted in the hospital; thereafter he had gone to his home. The accident had occurred due to the fast and negligent driving by the car driver. In cross examination he has stated that Assa Singh is not his relative. He is not an auto driver, but he drives the tractor. He has driving licence. He was sitting alone in the Auto as passenger and going from Satwari towards Vikram Chowk. The car in dispute was coming from Satwari and the scooter was also coming from Satwari toward Vikram chowk. The scooter was being driven on the left side of the road. He had not brought the injured Asha Singh to hospital on his auto. He might have come in some other vehicle. He had brought injured Pritam Kour to the hospital. PW-5 S. Sat Pal Singh (witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes) in his statement recorded before trial court has deposed, that the occurrence took place on 19.07.2009 and he came to know that his brother had met with an accident at Convent Crossing Gandhi Nagar Jammu. He gone to the place of occurrence and police from Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jammu had come there. He has heard the contents of seizure memo of Maruti Zen and it is true. He identifies his signatures on it and it is exhibited as EXTP-SS. Contents of seizure memo of Scooter Bajaj Chetak No. 4733 are also true. He identifies his signatures on it and it is exhibited as EXR-SS/1. In cross examination, he has stated that he had reached on the place of occurrence half an hour after the occurrence and he had stayed there for half an hour. He had gone to the police station at 8.30pm. Police had taken his signatures on the place of occurrence also and at police station also. Documents were filled at the time when he had signed it. PW 6 Jarnail Singh, (witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes) has deposed, that Pritam Kour had died in an accident on 29.07.2009. Police had taken his signatures on the place of occurrence also and at police station also. Documents were filled at the time when he had signed it. PW 6 Jarnail Singh, (witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes) has deposed, that Pritam Kour had died in an accident on 29.07.2009. Police had seized dead body of deceased for postmortem in front of him. The contents of seizure memo of dead body are true. He identifies his signatures on it and it is exhibited as EXTPW-VI. Contents of seizure memo of clothes of deceased are also true. He identifies his signature on it and it is exhibited as EXT PW-VI/1, thereafter, the police had handed over the dead body of the deceased for last rites to legal heirs. He has heard the contents of receipt memo, its contents are true. He identifies his signatures on it and it is already exhibited as EXT-8, thereafter the police had prepared death report (Form Marg) of the deceased, he identifies his signature on it, it is exhibited as EXT PW-VI/2, police has also recorded his statement. In cross examination, he has stated that he has seen the seized clothes of deceased in the Court and has also not seen any other articles in the court regarding which police had made seizure memo. PW-7 Malkiat Singh (driver by profession), (witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes) has deposed, that an accident had occurred in which Mst. Pritam Kour had died. On 29.07.2009 police had seized the dead body of deceased for postmortem and made its seizure memo. The contents of the seizure memo of dead body are true. He identifies his signatures on it, its contents are true and it is already exhibited as EXT PW-VI. Contents of seizure memo of clothes of deceased are also true, he identifies his signature on it and it is already exhibited as EXT PW-VI/1, thereafter police had handed over the dead body of the deceased for last rites to legal heirs. He has heard the contents of receipt memo, its contents are true, he identified his signatures on it and it is already exhibited as EXT-8. Police had recorded his statement under section 161 CrPC. In cross examination, has stated that these documents were prepared by police at GMC Jammu; police had taken his signatures also GMC Jammu. He has heard the contents of receipt memo, its contents are true, he identified his signatures on it and it is already exhibited as EXT-8. Police had recorded his statement under section 161 CrPC. In cross examination, has stated that these documents were prepared by police at GMC Jammu; police had taken his signatures also GMC Jammu. He has not seen the clothes in the court today. PW-8 S. Harbans Singh (driver by profession, witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes) has stated that on 29.07.2009 he had received the dead body of deceased Pritam Kour from GMC Jammu for performing the last rites. Contents of the receipt memo of dead body are true, he identifies his signatures on it and it is exhibited as EXTP/8. PW-9 Tariq Hussain (SRTC Mechanic) has stated that in the year 2009 he was posted as Inspector Central Work Shop Vikram Chowk Jammu. On 01.08.2009 he had conducted the machinery check up of the Maruti Zen No. JK02F-9725 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jammu on the information received from Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jammu. He had found the machinery in perfect condition and he had issued the certificate in this regard. The certificate attached with the file is written and signed by him, its contents are true and it is exhibited as EXT PW/9. In cross examination has stated that he had conducted the machinery inspection of the vehicle at Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jammu. The colour of the vehicle was white. Police had recorded his statement. PW-10 Dr. Rajinder Thapa (Demonstrator Government Medical College Jammu, Medical expert) has stated that on 29.07.2009 he was posted as Demonstrator in GMC Jammu. On that day he had conducted the postmortem of deceased Pritam Kour W/o Assa Singh R/o Nanak Nagar Jammu and found the following injuries on her body at the time of postmortem:- External Injuries 1. Stitched wound on forehead at supra orbital region right side about 8 cm curved in shape. 2. Stitched wound on right upper cheek 2 cms in length 3. Bruise on right breast 10 cm x 5 cm ( LxB), healed 4. Bruise on lower abdomen 8 cm x 6 cm ( L & B), healed 5. Bruise on left leg medical aspect of thigh 6. Multiple bruise on Upper Arm of different sizes and shapes (right arm) 7. Bruise on right breast 10 cm x 5 cm ( LxB), healed 4. Bruise on lower abdomen 8 cm x 6 cm ( L & B), healed 5. Bruise on left leg medical aspect of thigh 6. Multiple bruise on Upper Arm of different sizes and shapes (right arm) 7. Bruise on right shoulder 15 x 10 cm (LxB) bluish in colour 8. Left upper arm multiple bruise present. Internal Injuries 1. Fracture of left temporal bone present 2. Meninges congested ASH present bilaterally in parietal, frontal regions with multiple contusions 3. Brain substance edematous. Opinion: Death in this case is due to craniocerebral damage as a result of blunt trauma head which could be sustained in RTA, as alleged. He has issued the postmortem report in this regard which is attached with the file. It is written and signed by him, he identifies his signatures on it, its contents are true and correct and it is exhibited as EXT P-X. In cross examination, the medical expert has stated that alleged incident was told to him by one Nago Ram who happened to be HC and was posted at that point of time at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. In my opinion, I have mentioned that the cause of death was because of craniocerebral damage which could be sustained in RTA and such death is not possible if a person falls on hard and rough surface. PW-11 Dr. Mridula Singh (CMO Government Medical College Jammu, Medical expert), has stated that on 19th July 2009 she was posted as CMO, GMC Jammu and on that day she had examined Asha Singh R/o Nanak Nagar Jammu in an alleged case of RTA. The injured had multiple abrasions over the right flank and back and bleeding was also present. The patient was referred for radiologist opinion which revealed that there was not fracture. Opinion: the injuries are simple in nature, fresh in duration and caused by blunt force object. She has issued the certificate in this regard which is attached with the file. It is written and signed by her and she identifies her signatures on it, its contents are true and correct and it is exhibited as EXT-P-XI. In cross examination, she has stated that she had conducted preliminary examination of the injured. She has issued the certificate in this regard which is attached with the file. It is written and signed by her and she identifies her signatures on it, its contents are true and correct and it is exhibited as EXT-P-XI. In cross examination, she has stated that she had conducted preliminary examination of the injured. It is unlikely that such type of injuries may be caused by fall or by hitting against blunt object like pole etc. PW-12 Naresh Kumar (witness to supurdnama memo) has deposed, that he knows the accused present in the Court. On 10.08.2009 he had gone to the Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jammu. Police of P/S Gandhi Nagar Jammu had given Car No. JK0F-9725 on supardnama to accused in front of him and the accused had got released that case from the Court. He has admitted the contents of supardnama memo attached with the file, he identified his signatures on it and it is exhibited as EXT-P/XIII, thereafter police had recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. In cross examination, he has stated that police had taken his signature on a document at the time of releasing that vehicle on supardnama. PW-13 Nago Ram ASI, (I/O who conducted investigation of the case) has deposed, that in the year 2009 he was posted as ASI at Police Station Gandhi Nagar and investigation of the case FIR No. 214/2009 was entrusted to him. During the course of investigation, he had prepared the site plan which is attached with the file, which is written and signed by him. He identifies his signature on it and it is exhibited as EXT P-XIII, thereafter on 19.09.2007 he had seized the Car No. JK02F-9725 (ZEN) on spot and he made its seizure memo which is attached with the file, he identifies his signatures on it and it is already exhibited as EXT-SS dated 01.08.2013. On the same day he had seized Bajaj Chetak scooter PCV-4733 on spot and made its seizure memo, which is attached with the file. Thereafter he identifies his signatures on it and it is already exhibited as EXT SS-1, thereafter he had got machinery of ZEN car No. 9725 examined and obtained the report of the same which is attached with the file. He had released that car on supardnama of the accused after obtaining the court order. Thereafter he identifies his signatures on it and it is already exhibited as EXT SS-1, thereafter he had got machinery of ZEN car No. 9725 examined and obtained the report of the same which is attached with the file. He had released that car on supardnama of the accused after obtaining the court order. On 29.07.2009 he had seized the dead body of the deceased Pritam Kour for conducting its postmortem and made its seizure memo which is attached with the file, he identifies his signature on it, it is already exhibited as EXT P-VI dated 29.07.2009. He had seized the clothes of the deceased and made its seizure memo which is attached with this file, he identifies his signatures on it and is it already exhibited as EXT P-VI/1 and after postmortem he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the legal heirs for last rites. He had prepared the receipt memo in this regard and it is exhibited as EXT P-8 dated 19.12.2013. Thereafter he had prepared the death report of the deceased which is attached with the file, he identifies his signature on it, which is already exhibited as EXT-PW VI/2. He had arrested the accused Vinod Bali present in the court on 22.07.2009 and the accused was released on bail after obtaining the court order. He had also medically examined the injured Asha Singh. He had obtained the medical report of Asha Singh and post mortem report of deceased and attached the same with the Challan. He has seen the medical report of injured and post mortem report of the deceased attached with the file and they are the same which he had obtained. He had recorded the statements of witnesses and had produced this challan against the accused for the offences u/s 279, 337, 304-A RPC. In cross examination, the I.O has stated, that he has now retired from the police department as ASI. The FIR in this case was registered at 8.30 pm and had reached on spot at 9 pm. When he reached on spot, the injured and deceased had already been taken away. He had not enquired as to who had taken them to hospital. When he had gone on spot, the Flying Squad was present there. He had recorded the statements of eye witnesses after recording the statements of other witnesses on spot. When he reached on spot, the injured and deceased had already been taken away. He had not enquired as to who had taken them to hospital. When he had gone on spot, the Flying Squad was present there. He had recorded the statements of eye witnesses after recording the statements of other witnesses on spot. He could not record the statement of injured Asha Singh in the hospital because the injured was not in the position to given statement. He recorded the statements of injured Asha Singh in the hospital on 22.07.2009. 9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for petitioner/convict and Ld. Dy. AG for respondent, perused the impugned judgments meticulously, scanned the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial court and gone through the relevant law on the subject matter. 10. The case set up by the prosecution before the trial court is, that on 19.07.2009 at approximately 8/8.15pm when PW-1 (S. Asha Singh) alongwith his wife Pritam Kour was travelling on his scooter from Satwari towards Vikram Chowk, and when they reached at crossing near Convent School, a car bearing No. JK02F-9725 being driven by petitioner/convict at a very high speed hit his scooter due to which his wife fell on the car and got seriously injured, whereby, he too received serious injuries, some persons picked up them from the place of occurrence and took them to hospital, next day his wife was shifted to Pathankot hospital where she died. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses out of total listed 14 witnesses in the charge sheet. The trial court of Ld. Railway Magistrate Jammu vide it’s judgment dated 26.09.2014 convicted petitioner/accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.2000/- for commission of offence u/s 304-A RPC and simple imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.1000/- for offence u/s 279 RPC, simple imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- for offence u/s 337 RPC. The conviction rendered by the trial court stands upheld/confirmed by the appellate court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu vide it’s judgment/order dated 30.10.2015. 11. To prove the rash or negligent driving which led to the death of deceased Pritam Kour, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of 2 eyewitnesses to the occurrence namely, PW-1 S. Asha Singh & PW-2 Narbeer Singh. Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu vide it’s judgment/order dated 30.10.2015. 11. To prove the rash or negligent driving which led to the death of deceased Pritam Kour, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of 2 eyewitnesses to the occurrence namely, PW-1 S. Asha Singh & PW-2 Narbeer Singh. PW-1 S. Asha Singh is husband of deceased Pritam Kour and at the relevant time of occurrence on 19.07.2009 at 8/8.15pm he was driving his scooter, and his deceased wife was a pillion rider on it. In examination-in-chief PW-1 has led evidence that he while driving the scooter reached at crossing near Convent School, offending vehicle bearing No. JK02F/9725 driven by accused/petitioner at very high speed hit his scooter due to which his wife fell down, got seriously injured, was shifted to hospital and on next day she was shifted to Pathankot Hospital where she died. In cross-examination, PW-1 has categorically stated that he was driving his scooter at low speed but accused was driving the car approximately with a speed of 70-80 kmph. PW-1’s evidence does not contain an iota of whisper that accused/petitioner was driving the offending vehicle car in rash or negligent manner. Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (MV Act) authorizes the Central Government to prescribe maximum speed at which each class or type of motor vehicle can be driven. The Central Government issued a Notification in April 2018 to increase the speed limit of various classes of vehicles and notified, that on expressways the maximum speed limit for a car or for a vehicle that carries less than 9 passengers is 120 kmph whereas it is 100 kmph for vehicles that carry nine or more passengers, the limits for 4-lane roads with a divider is fixed at a maximum of 100 kmph for vehicles that carry less than nine (9) passengers and 90 kmph for vehicles that carry nine or more passengers. Section 279 of RPC deals with the provision of rash or negligent driving and mandates, that whoever drives any vehicle, or rides on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either discretion for a term which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or with both. In order to convict a person u/s 279 RPC prosecution has to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way rashly or negligently endangering human life. Threadbare critical appraisal of testimony of PW-1 S. Asha Singh makes it abundantly clear, that he has not uttered single word much less a word that the accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly or negligently. PW-1 has only referred in his evidence that the offending vehicle/car was driven in approximately high speed of 70-80 kmph. In terms of the Central Govt. Notification aforesaid of April, 20018, the maximum speed limit for 4-lane roads is fixed at 100 kmph. The evidence of PW-1, that the offending vehicle was being driven by accused/petitioner in high speed of 70-80 kmph, to my considered view is within the speed limit and has not crossed it’s maximum/upper limit of 100 kmph to construe it as a case of high speed driving. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be concluded, that petitioner/accused/convict was driving the offending car at the relevant time of occurrence on 19.07.2009 with high speed. PW-2 Narbeer Singh is another eyewitness of occurrence and in his testimony before the trial court, has categorically putforth evidence that the offending car No. JK02F/9725 was driven by accused/petitioner rashly, negligently and at high speed from Satwari towards Vikram Chowk and caused accident with scooter driven by his uncle PW-1 S. Asha Singh resulting in causing of serious injuries to his aunt pillion rider who succumbed to his injuries in Ludhiana. The deposition of PW-2 similarly does not speak as how the accused was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently and in high speed. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka vs. Satish [ (1998) 8 SCC 493 ] held, that merely because the truck was being driven at a “High Speed” does not bespeak of either “negligence” or “rashness” by itself. In (2009) 7 SCC 353 (Braham Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows – Section 279 deals with rash driving or riding on a public way. In (2009) 7 SCC 353 (Braham Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows – Section 279 deals with rash driving or riding on a public way. A bare reading of the G.R. Case No. 5215/2009 provision makes it clear that it must be established that the accused was driving any vehicle on a public way in a manner which endangered human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not (sic) negligence. Similarly, in Section 304-A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304-A, it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in to, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved. In the case of 2005 (2) GLT 274 (Kriti Singh Vs. State of Assam), it was observed as follows – “In order to find a person guilty under Section 279 IPC, prosecution is to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way and that he was driving in a rash or negligent manner. Similarly, to constitute offence under Section 304 (A) IPC, the prosecution is to establish the rash or negligent act of the accused which was responsible in resulting to death of the victim and such act of rash or negligence do not amount to culpable homicide. Thus, in order to constitute either of these two offences, the proof of rashness or negligence is essential. The term "rash" and "negligence" have not been defined in the code and both the words are not synonymous. Rashness is an act done in the hope that no untoward consequence will ensue though the person is aware of the likelihood of such consequence. On the other hand, negligence is acting with the awareness that harmful or mischievous consequences will follow. If a person does an act with utter indifference of the consequence of which he may be conscious, which he hoped may not take place, he is said to be rash. Negligence is failure to take that precaution, which a reasonable and prudent person is expected to take. If a person does an act with utter indifference of the consequence of which he may be conscious, which he hoped may not take place, he is said to be rash. Negligence is failure to take that precaution, which a reasonable and prudent person is expected to take. Even if an act is found to be negligent, it may not be construed to mean as rash in a given case. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous consequences are likely to follow although the accused hoped, even though he hoped sincerely, that consequences might not follow. Criminality lies in not taking the precaution to prevent the happening of the consequences in the hope that they may not happen. On the other hand, negligence is an act done without doing something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or an act, which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it”. The Apex Court in the case of Bhalchandra Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1319 held, that criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. 13. Applying the ratios of judgments (Supra) to the fact of the case in hand, it is discernible, that the evidence of PWs 1&2 (two eyewitnesses to the occurrence) stating that the offending car was driven by accused at very high speed, is unworthy of reliance for the reasons that within the permissible limits of speed of 100 kmph for 4 lane roads as in the case in hand, offending vehicle was being driven below/under the said speed limit. PWs 1&2 could not give any indication even approximately as to what is meant by “High Speed”. “High Speed” is a relative term and it is for the prosecution to bring on record the material to establish as to what is meant by high speed in the facts and circumstance of the case. PWs 1&2 could not give any indication even approximately as to what is meant by “High Speed”. “High Speed” is a relative term and it is for the prosecution to bring on record the material to establish as to what is meant by high speed in the facts and circumstance of the case. In a criminal trial the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of charge against accused always rests on the prosecution and there is presumption of innocence in favour of accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exception which is not even available to the accused in the case in hand. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of “rashness” or “negligence” could be drawn by invoking the maxim “res ipsa loquitur”. The other witnesses of the prosecution viz; PW-3 S. Ajeet Singh (witness to seizure of car and motorcycle), PW-5 S. Sat Pal Singh (witness to receipt of dead body and clothes), PW-6 Jarnail Singh (witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes), PW-7 Malkiat Singh ( witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes), PW-8 Harbans Singh ( witness to receipt memo of dead body and clothes), PW-9 Tariq Hussain (SRTC Mechanic), PW-10 Doctor Rajinder Thapa (Medical Expert), PW-11 Doctor Mridula Singh (Medical Expert), PW-12 Naresh Kumar ( witness to supurdnama Memo), PW-13 Nago Ram ASI (I.O) are formal witnesses of the case, and in absence of any cogent, reliable and credible evidence regarding the rash or negligent driving, the evidence putforth by eyewitnesses PWs 1&2 cannot link the accused/petitioner with commission of crime attributed to him. 14. Considering the evidence on record in it’s right perspective and in juxtaposition with the case laws (Supra), I am of the firm view, that the prosecution witnesses have failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused/petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner at the time of occurrence and committed the alleged incident and caused death of the deceased, hence ingredients of the offences u/ss 279/337/304-A of RPC are found absent in this case. Resultantly, I feel myself persuaded to hold that petitioner/accused has not been found guilty for commission of offences attributed against him. Resultantly, I feel myself persuaded to hold that petitioner/accused has not been found guilty for commission of offences attributed against him. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, whereby, the impugned judgments of trial court dated 26.09.2014 and appellate court dated 30.10.2015 being meritless, are reversed/set aside/quashed. Petitioner/convict namely Vinod Bali S/o Suraj Parkash Bali R/o Kalanpur P.O. Kana Chack Jammu, is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. He shall stand discharged from his surety and personal bonds. Criminal appeal is disposed of alongwith connected CMPs. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.