High speed alone does not establish rash and negligent driving.

The prosecution alleged that Nagaraj drove a tractor and trailer carrying wedding guests at high speed and negligently, and applied the brakes when a buffalo crossed the road.

The vehicle capsized, killing two passengers and injuring others.

The trial court convicted him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 181 and 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

On appeal, the Sessions Court acquitted him of the IPC offences.

The State appealed against that acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the evidence established that the respondent drove rashly or negligently so as to sustain the convictions under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC.

Whether the appellate court’s acquittal disclosed an error warranting interference in the State’s appeal.

The appeal was brought under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The offences considered were those under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC.

The court applied the principle that high speed, by itself, is insufficient to establish rash or negligent driving; the prosecution must prove the accused’s rash or negligent act.

The court noted that the prosecution evidence showed the tractor capsized after a buffalo crossed the road and the driver applied the brakes to avoid it.

It agreed with the appellate court that the allegation of high speed, without more, did not establish rashness or negligence.

On re-examining the record, the High Court found no legal or factual error in the acquittal.