evidence of PWs1 and 2 reveal the same. Therefore, the question of driving the lorry in a high speed, as alleged by the prosecution, does not arise. Now the question would be, whether the accused has took the lorry reverse without observing that the deceased standing by the side of the road. In this regard, Exhibit P1-complaint does not reveal as to at what distance the deceased-Akkamma was standing? Whether she was standing by the side of the road or on the footpath has not been disclosed in Exhibit P1. Even PWs1 and 2 have not deposed anything in this regard. Therefore, in the absence of these material evidence, this Court can accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused is, that the deceased who was aged 75 years suffering from vision problem, would have come on to the road abruptly without observing the moving lorry, then said unfortunate incident might have occurred. For this reason, this court cannot presume that the accused being the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The prosecution has not placed any cogent, corroborative and convincing evidence to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. In this regard, it is appropriate to
