"Act of driving is punishable only when it is rash and negligence. Rashness implies a speed which is unwarranted. Whereas act of negligence involves not taking proper care and attention while driving,” the Court observed. 

The Court acquitted a man who was charged with causing the death of a cyclist and a bullock after he hit a car. He was charged with offences under Sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 337 (hurt due to rash and negligent act), 338 (grievous hurt due to rash and negligent act) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

During the trial, five witnesses were examined, and documentary evidence was produced. The prosecution case was that the car of the accused was being driven at a high speed. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused in 2009 which was challenged by the State of Maharashtra before the Bombay High Court.

“No doubt he said that Tata sumo came speedily. It has to be appreciated on the basis of other available materials,” the Court observed. 

“It is really strange state of affairs, when such matters are conducted neither Investigating Officer has prepared a map/rough sketch, nor trial court has taken pains in recording directions correctly in the evidence. If there is some confusion, the trial Court could have clarified it from the witnesses by putting questions which is permissible by law,” the Court observed. 

It also said that there was no evidence to corroborate the statements of the bullock cart driver.

It, therefore, upheld the order of acquittal.