noticed that in the Trolley there were 30 to 35 persons sitting as per PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 while PW-12 states that there were 20 to 30 persons sitting. PW-14 states that there were around 15 to 20 persons while PW-15 states that there were around 15 to 30 persons sitting. Thus, there is discrepancy in regard to the number of persons sitting in the Trolley while it is an admitted position amongst all the witnesses that the Tractor & Trolley were used for going to a function and Ramsahai was driving the Tractor. While some of the witnesses have stated that the accused-petitioner was driving the Tractor with speed, all the witnesses in crossexamination have agreed that the incident took place while at the sharp turning on the road in 'Ranota Ki Ghati', that when the Tractor & Trolley was turned turn on the road in speed, it overturned. Prabhu (PW-17) in cross-examination has stated that the Tractor was being driven at the normal speed and it overturned at the turning of the road in the Valley of 'Ranota'. 9. While negligence may not singly be culpable but negligence with rashness would. A rash act is the culmination of overhasty decisions and recklessness on the part of the accused. In Brahmdas Vs. State of UP: 2009(7) SCC 353, it was held that "it must be proved that the accused was driving the vehicle on public way in a manner which endangered human life." 10. In the present case, the accused-petitioner ought to have shown great caution and care while turning on the sharp road and as the witnesses have mentioned that he was driving on high speed and did not slow down even at the sharp turn, it is proved that he acted rashly and negligently within the meaning of Section 279 IPC.
