JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - This application in revision is directed against an appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, upholding the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 304-A, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on him. The Petitioner was a contractor under the P.W. D. for doing repair work to a part of the road from Pallahara to to Deogarh. For this purpose the P.W. D. placed at his disposal a hand roller weighing about 2 tons for use on the road. It is said that he had been given the oral instructions to take necessary precautions at the time of drawing the hand roller on the road. On 15-11-64 the Petitioner engaged 10 persons to take the road roller to a certain point on the road where its use was considered to be necessary. While the roller was being taken down a slope on the road it ran over one of the labourers and he died. On these allegations a case u/s 304-A, Indian Penal Code was started against the other labourers, and the Petitioner was cited as a witness in this case. At a subsequent stage of the trial the Petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused and the case proceeded against the Petitioner and the other labourers. All of them were convicted in the trial Court u/s 304-A, Indian Penal Code and each of the labourers was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days each. The learned Magistrate convicted the Petitioner u/s 304-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months. The Magistrate further ordered that after the fine is realised, compensation of Rs. 1000/- should be paid to the dependant of the deceased. The Petitioner alone appealed, but it was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and as such there is no reliable "evidence to show how exactly this unfortunate incident took place. In the circumstances the lower Courts in convicting the Petitioner relied entirely on circumstantial evidence and particularly on the oral testimony given by P. Ws. 6 and 7. P.W. 6 is the S.I. of Excise, Pallahara. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and as such there is no reliable "evidence to show how exactly this unfortunate incident took place. In the circumstances the lower Courts in convicting the Petitioner relied entirely on circumstantial evidence and particularly on the oral testimony given by P. Ws. 6 and 7. P.W. 6 is the S.I. of Excise, Pallahara. At about 2 P.M. on the date of occurrence he saw the roller being dragged by the labourers on the road near a place called Batisuan. According to him, the roller was being drawn with some speed and he advised them to drag it carefully. At that time the roller was being dragged down a slope on the road and according to the witness, 2 or 3 persons were on the front side of the roller while rest were behind. This was 4 to 5 hours before the occurrence. He was however unable to say whether the deceased was one of the three persons who were proceeding in front of the roller. In cross-examination it was put to him that while he was examined by the police he did not make any statement that the roller was moving with some speed and that some labourers were proceeding in front of the roller. He denied the suggestion. But the prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer in this case with the result it was not possible for the accused to bring on record the contradiction between the statements made by P.W. 6 in the court and before the police. In the circumstances no reliance can be placed on the above statement made by P.W. 6. PW. 7 is the Section Officer, P.W. D. and he stated that the roller was supplied to the Petitioner and he had been instructed to employ 10 persons for dragging the roller and to take the roller carefully down any slope. There is evidence to show in this case that 10 persons were actually employed by the Petitioner to take the roller. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 8 who was present when the Petitioner engaged the labourers that the latter stated that as they were accustomed to drag the roller they would do so carefully. 3. There is evidence to show in this case that 10 persons were actually employed by the Petitioner to take the roller. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 8 who was present when the Petitioner engaged the labourers that the latter stated that as they were accustomed to drag the roller they would do so carefully. 3. This is all the evidence in this case or which the prosecution relied and I fail to see how from what these witnesses say, any inference can be drawn that the Petitioner was rash and negligent and that it is, the alleged rash or negligent act of the Petitioner which was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. What Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code requires is the causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act and that the death must be the direct and proximate result of the rash or negligent act. It must be the causa causans. It is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. What we get from the evidence is that the Petitioner engaged 10 labourers to drag the roller. The persons engaged were not new to the job. They expressed confidence at the time they were engaged that they would drag the roller carefully. Four or five hours before the occurrence according to P.W. 6 the roller was taken down a slope without any accident and we get it from P.W. 5 that this slope is much bigger than the one where the accident subsequently took place. Obviously relying on the testimony of P.W. 6 it was urged on behalf of the opposite party that the Petitioner was negligent in so far as he did not give specific instructions to the labourers that while taking the roller down a slope none of the labourers should remain in front of the roller. Firstly, the evidence of P.W. 6 is not corroborated on this point. As I have stated, the I O. has not been examined to elicit from him the contradiction between the statements made by P.W. 6 before the police and in the Court. Even assuming that certain persons were in front of the roller, there is no evidence that the deceased was one of them. As I have stated, the I O. has not been examined to elicit from him the contradiction between the statements made by P.W. 6 before the police and in the Court. Even assuming that certain persons were in front of the roller, there is no evidence that the deceased was one of them. In any case, what P.W. 6 said in this case is regarding what he saw about 4 to 5 hours before the accident took place. There is absolutely no evidence to show that any labourer was proceeding in front of the roller when the incident took place. In any event, even assuming that the deceased was in fact going in front of the roller, I fail to see how, for this reason, the Petitioner who admittedly was not present at the spot at that time would be held to be guilty of any rash or negligent act which is the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. 4. For the reasons and circumstances stated above, the conviction of the Petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly 1 allow this application, set aside the conviction of the Petitioner and the sentence imposed on him and direct that the fine, if paid, should be refunded. Final Result : Allowed