JUDGMENT : Das, J. - The Petitioner in this case has been convicted u/s 304(A) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for four months. He was also convicted u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code, but it was not considered necessary to award a separate sentence therefore. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge the conviction and the sentence were confirmed the Petitioner has accordingly come up in revision to this Court. 2. The facts now In dispute and may be Stated in the I words of the learned Sessions Judge as follows: The Appellant is a motor driver in the town of Cuttack. On 31-5 46, at about 10 p. m. in the night while driving his car (Nayagrah-54), on the Buxi Bazar, he parked it in front of the Bilimoria shop, the parking being done not on the road, but on the side-land to the south of the road. He then went to the Bilimoria shop and after purchasing some petrol there, while he was backing the car for the purpose of coming away, the rear wheel ran over the chest of an old beggar woman who was sleeping under the Chakunda tree which stand there. When the beggar woman shrieked in pain, he stopped the car, driving it forward, and came out. He and some other persons who gathered then there gave some water to the injured woman who thereupon rose to a sitting posture. He took her in his Car to the Hospital, but the doctor on examination, found her to be dead, upon which he came with the dead body to the P.S. and reported there the occurrence. 3. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that it was a dark night and this is also admitted by the accused in his statement. The accused has further stated that on account of the darkness, the backside was not reflected in the mirror fixed to the front part of the oar and that the mirror did not show whether there was any body under the neighbouring Chakunda tree. He also stated that he was looking back to his right side while backing the car and sounded the horn twice or thrice; but that he realised the existence of some person behind the car only when he heard the shrieking. He also stated that he was looking back to his right side while backing the car and sounded the horn twice or thrice; but that he realised the existence of some person behind the car only when he heard the shrieking. That he was blow in the horn while he was backing, is corroborated by the only eyewitness in the case, P.W. 2 who in cross-examination admits the hearing of the horn. The Courts below however held the Petitioner guilty of rashness and negligence and of causing the death of the beggar woman thereby, being of the opinion that it was his duty, in the circumstances, to have examined personally the ground just behind the car and to have made sure that it was clear, before he attempted the backing. In answer to the suggestion on behalf of the Petitioner that nobody could have anticipated that any person would be sleeping at that place, which though not a part of the metalled portion of the road, was still a part of the public road itself, and was in any case a public place, the courts below said that it was common knowledge that such places are the haunts of beggars and of cattle and that since it was resting time, being about 10 p.m., the sleeping of somebody or other at the spot should have been anticipated. 4. That the Petitioner did not personally see the ground at the rear of the oar before starting to back it, and did not thereby satisfy himself that there was no obstacle for his backing has been concurrently found by both the Courts blow and must be accepted as a fact. The Petitioner no doubt says that he did in fact go round and examine the rear of the oar before attempting to back, but as pointed out, by the trial Court, he did not say so in his earliest statement. This plea is clearly an after-thought. 5. The question, therefore, that arises in the case is whether the Courts below are right in the view, which they have taken, viz., that the Petitioner was under a duty, in the circumstances of this case, to inspect the ground at the rear of the oar in the first instance, before he attempted the backing of the oar. 5. The question, therefore, that arises in the case is whether the Courts below are right in the view, which they have taken, viz., that the Petitioner was under a duty, in the circumstances of this case, to inspect the ground at the rear of the oar in the first instance, before he attempted the backing of the oar. In holding that the Petitioner was under such a duty the Courts below were largely influenced by the assumption that the place, was being normally used as a sleeping place by beggars and cattle in the night But having regard to the fact that the place is a public place and part of a public road, and there being no positive evidence in the case that in fact any persons, beggars or otherwise, were in the habit of sleeping at that place in the nights, the courts below do not appear to me to be justified in the assumption they made and in taking judicial notice of it. On this view, I was inclined to feel some hesitation as to whether there was any absolute duty on the part of the driver before attempting to back the car to go round and see that the ground to the rear was clear and whether it was not sufficient care, in the circumstances if, as he appears to have done, he was, while backing the oar, looking to the backside, from his right and blowing the horn, a process which might normally have obviated any accident except with reference to a person who lay down just behind the oar and was in sleep. No direct authority has been brought to our notice which Jays down one way or the other, the duty of a driver in such circumstances. My learned brother, who has considerable self-driving experience, is inclined to think that in such circumstances, it is the duty of the driver to go behind the oar and see that the rear is clear. 6. The driving regulations framed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Motor Vehicles Act and constituting the 10th schedule to the Act and which are usually printed as part of the license issued to any driver do not contain any specific provision with reference to the duty of the driver when he is backing his car. 6. The driving regulations framed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Motor Vehicles Act and constituting the 10th schedule to the Act and which are usually printed as part of the license issued to any driver do not contain any specific provision with reference to the duty of the driver when he is backing his car. The American law in this matter appears from the book called "Trial of Automobile Accident Cases by Schwartz at p. 178 therein, it is stated as follows: "The law does not under all circumstances forbid the backing of motor vehicles either on private driveways or public streets. The backing of a machine may put greater precautions on the driver, but if he takes the proper precautions, under the circumstances, he is not necessarily liable.... Furthermore, it may be regarded as negligence for a chauffeur to back his machine without looking backward to see if there is any apparent danger in so doing, or without giving timely warning of his intention to back, when a reasonable necessity for it exists. He must not only look backward when commencing in operation, but he must continue to look backward in order that he may not collide with or injure these law fully using such street or highway." The English law however does not appear to be exactly the same. In the text-book on the "Law relating to Motor vehicles" by Mahaffy and Dodson, at p. 130, it is stated as follows: "Travelling backwards is forbidden except when done for safety or convenience". This would seem to indicate a much stricter standard than what obtain in the American law. That this very strict standard has been adopted in India appears to me to be clarified by Rule No. 166 framed by the Provincial Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to be found at p. 90 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (Government Edition). That this very strict standard has been adopted in India appears to me to be clarified by Rule No. 166 framed by the Provincial Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to be found at p. 90 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (Government Edition). That rule is in the following term: "No driver of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to travel backwards without first satisfying himself that he will not thereby cause danger or undue inconvenience to any person or in any circumstances, save in the case of a road roller for any greater distance or period of time than may be reasonably necessary in order to turn the vehicle round." This seems to me to indicate clearly that the driver has the peremptory duty of satisfying himself before backing that the ground to the rear is clear enough for backing so as not to cause any danger or undue inconvenience to any person. This rule being a statutory rule has statutory force. The duty to satisfy himself about the safety of the backing operation has been laid down herein without any qualification. Whether or not a driver is obliged to get down from the oar and examine the position to the rear every time when an attempt at backing is made, it is unnecessary to decide and must depend upon the circumstances at the time. But it is obvious from this rule that a very strict standard of care is expected to be maintained in such cases. 7. One has, therefore, to judge, with reference to the circumstance of this case, whether that strict standard of care has been satisfied by the Petitioner. Admittedly it was a dark night. The particular place which was to be covered by the backing was by the side of a tree, which rendered it darker if any, as the statement of the accused himself indicates. The oar was a high car and the mirror fixed to the front of the car would not reflect anything at the back of the car, and hence merely looking backwards to the right while sitting at the wheel may not enable the driver to know what is at the back, in the way of the backward motion of the car, even if it is not in a lying posture or sleeping on the ground. Neither would the mere blowing of the horn repeatedly have been a sufficient warning to persons or cattle behind since as the evidence of P.W. 2 shows the following--"At a distance of 50 cubits from the spot of occurrence, there is a traffic police stand and traffic of motor vehicles is very brisk at the place as oars take petrol there. The Buxi Bazar market place is very near the place of occurrence and there is the usual din and noise of the market place there. Motor horns are frequently hard at that place as the motor vehicles pass frequently there." Though the occurrence was at about 10 p. m. it was not such a late hour at that season (31-5-40), that bustle and din of the traffic would have substantially subsided. P.W. 2's evidence itself shows that he was returning from the cinema after' purchasing vegetables in the market, thereby confirming the impression that a fair volume of traffic must still have been present at the time. In these circumstances, it cannot be herd that the Petitioner took sufficient care in attempting the backing merely by sitting at the wheel, and looking from his right side backwards and blowing the horn, even though he may have had no reason to anticipate the presence of a, sleeping woman just behind the wheels of the car. I must, hold therefore, in agreement with the Courts below, that it was negligence on the part of the Petitioner not to have gone to the rear of the car and satisfying himself before he started backing. The convictions under Sections 304-A and 279 I.P.C, must accordingly be maintained. 8. As regards the sentence, the courts below thought that a sentence of four months' R.I., was necessary. But there are a number of extenuating circumstances in the case. The place was a public place and I am not satisfied that anybody need have anticipated that persons would be sleeping at that place, It may be further noted that the Petitioner is not a local person, but one who belongs to mouza Dhamnagar in Balasore, and there is nothing in the record to show that he has sufficiently long experience in Cuttack as a motor driver to be aware of the likelihood of any of the beggars sleeping at that place, if as the Courts below say that, that was a usual feature of the locality. On the other hand, it is quite clear from the subsequent conduct of the Petitioner that not only was this unfortunate accident quite unanticipated by him, but it is to be said to the Petitioner's credit that he conducted himself in a very considerate and humane manner. He immediately gave first aid to the woman along with other persons who gathered on the spot by pouring water into her mouth and making her sit up. He put her into his car and rushed up to the hospital and it was unfortunate that the woman died before she could receive any medical help. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the sentence of imprisonment is not called for. Neither is a very heavy sentence of fine necessary. A heavy sentence of fine may have been required if the relations of the deceased could have been traced and if compensation to them could have been awarded therefrom. But as P.W. 1 says the deceased woman remained unidentified. Taking all these circumstances into consideration. I think that a sentence by way of a fine of Rs 100/- is adequate and that no separate sentence in respect of the convictions under the two sections are called for. In default of payment of fine, the Petitioner will undergo R. I. for two months. 9. In the result, the revision is dismissed, subject to the modification of the sentence. The convictions u/s 304-A and Section 279 are confirmed and the Petitioner is sentenced to a fine of Re. 100/- or R. I. for two months in default. Narasimham, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed