“4. I have carefully evaluated the evidence on the record in the light of the submissions that have been canvassed. One or two factors stand out very prominently, the first of them being that the incident has taken place on the highway. The situation that prevails on the open highway is slightly different to one that the Court would take into account had the incident taken place within the city limits. One needs to take into account the factors that on the highway, vehicles would legitimately be moving at a relatively high speed. The more important aspect is that on the highway the vehicles have right of way and if a person desires to cross the highway, the rules of the road require that the person would have to wait until the traffic has passed and only then embark on crossing the highway. It is a very familiar error committed by pedestrians even on the national highway that they saunter on to the road regardless of the movement of the traffic and if a person does a suicidal act of this type, then it would be impermissible for a Court in situation of this type to hold the driver of the vehicle responsible for the consequences of the Act. I need to take into account one or two aspects submitted by the defence, the first of them being that the incident has taken place at night and we have no indication on the record as to what the light conditions were like. One may presume therefore that the light conditions were relatively poor and in this background if the deceased, as often happens, alighted from the jeep and was impatient to get to the other side of the road and made his way across the highway regardless of the oncoming vehicles, there is every possibility that he was the main contributory to the incident in question. We do have generalized evidence to the effect that the impact took place between Umesh and the motorcycle but we do not have a really specialized description from which the Court can 100% hold that it was the driver who was responsible and it was because of his rashness and negligence that the incident took place. It is true that in motor accident cases that the principle that the facts speak for themselves is applicable but in the present instance even those facts are not free from doubt. Having regard to this position, I am of the view that this Court must bear in mind one fact, that this is an appeal against acquittal and unless the Court is satisfied that the acquittal order is not only wrong but has also resulted in miscarriage of justice, it would not be permissible for
