https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469498 In a criminal prosecution arising from a truck accident, the Supreme Court noted that rashness or negligence in driving must be proved by the prosecution as an essential ingredient of the charge. High speed by itself was not sufficient to establish rashness or negligence, especially where there was no evidence explaining what "high speed" meant in the circumstances, no material on the sudden jerk, and the motor vehicle inspector's report was not produced or proved. The Court also rejected reliance on res ipsa loquitur to fill the evidentiary gap in the absence of a statutory exception. On that reasoning, the acquittal was left undisturbed because the High Court's view was reasonably possible. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2026 18:13:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469498 In a criminal prosecution arising from a truck accident, the Supreme Court noted that rashness or negligence in driving must be proved by the prosecution as an essential ingredient of the charge. High speed by itself was not sufficient to establish rashness or negligence, especially where there was no evidence explaining what "high speed" meant in the circumstances, no material on the sudden jerk, and the motor vehicle inspector's report was not produced or proved. The Court also rejected reliance on res ipsa loquitur to fill the evidentiary gap in the absence of a statutory exception. On that reasoning, the acquittal was left undisturbed because the High Court's view was reasonably possible. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469498