Judgment :- 1. The circumstances leading up to this Revision, taken up suo moto, are the the following. The accused who is the driver of a lorry was convicted by the trial Magistrate under S.304 A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under S.304-A and two months for the other offence. He was also convicted under S.89 read with S.112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced on that count to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All these convictions and sentences were set aside and he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge who heard his appeal. In revision a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the Session Judge for fresh disposal. Thereafter the Sessions Judge has again acquitted the accused of the offences under S.304-A and 279 of the IPC. But he has confirmed the conviction and sentence under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The incident took place at or about 8-15 a.m. on 27121966 on the Ooruttambalam-Pravachambalam road. The lorry after dashing against the hind portion of a Transport bus which came from the opposite side knocked down and caused the death of two pedestrians, Narayani and her son Subhashanan. The cleaner was thrown out of the cabin of the lorry and being pressed between the lorry and the compound wall on the side of the road he sustained injuries and later on died. 3. The scene mahazar prepared by the Police shows that the road lies north to south at the place. At the place where the occurrence took place there is a bent to the north east. About 150 feet to the south of the scene there is another bent to the west. The width of the tarred portion of the road at the place is only 14 feet 4 inches. On either side of it there is a foot-path about 26 inches wide. The length of the bus is 26 feet 4 inches and its breadth 7 feet 7 inches. 4. At the time of the incident the lorry was fully loaded with granite. pw.11 is the driver of the bus which came from the opposite direction. It was coming from the south and the lorry from the north. The length of the bus is 26 feet 4 inches and its breadth 7 feet 7 inches. 4. At the time of the incident the lorry was fully loaded with granite. pw.11 is the driver of the bus which came from the opposite direction. It was coming from the south and the lorry from the north. There is a steep slope there from north to south. After negotiating the bent on the north east the bus suddenly stopped on the western side of the road as pw.11 found from a distance of about 10 feet that the accused was negotiating a descent and at the place where the bus was stopped the width of the road was not sufficient for two vehicles to pass side by side. While the left front wheel of the bus was remaining at a place 7 inches to the east the left hind wheel was remaining at a place 21 inches to the east of the western end of the tarred portion of the road. Evidently the front side of the bus when it stopped was turned towards the north-west, its hind portion was nearer the eastern end of the road than the front portion and it had occupied a major portion of the tarred portion of the road. Narayani and her son were going south through the foot-path on the eastern side of the road. 5. The question requiring consideration is whether the finding of the judge below that the incident was a sheer accident which the accused in spite of the due diligence could not avoid is so perverse and unreasonable as necessitating interference in revision. Mr. P. Kesavan Nair, counsel for the accused in a very persuasive address has put before me not only the principles to be considered, but also the position here. While S.304-A of the IPC. deals with causing death by rash or negligent act S.287 deals with driving or riding on public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger life. Rashness or negligence contemplated by the two sections is criminal rashness or negligence. Simple lack of care may constitute civil liability but by itself without mens rea and such a degree of capability as to amount to gross negligence is insufficient to constitute criminal liability. The driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle has a duty to control it. Rashness or negligence contemplated by the two sections is criminal rashness or negligence. Simple lack of care may constitute civil liability but by itself without mens rea and such a degree of capability as to amount to gross negligence is insufficient to constitute criminal liability. The driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle has a duty to control it. He should act with due care to guard against the dangerous consequences of his act. He should take precautions and measures to avert dangers which are likely to cause bodily injury to others. Contributory negligence is no defence. In these days of heavy traffic on roads, which in this part of the country are below the standard expected of them, motorists are a menance to peaceful pedestrians. There are vast numbers of pedestrians also on the road and the driver of a vehicle has to use his intelligence to anticipate what pedestrians and vehicles coming from front, sides and behind would behave and regulate his own conduct accordingly. Often times he has to take decision in the split of a second and accidents take place on account of error of judgment on his part or his defective intelligence. Failure to foresee dangers is one of the commonest causes of accidents on the road. It is easy to be wise after the event but the question must always be whether at the time of the occurrence the driver was criminally rash or negligent. 6. Did the accused in the present case fail to take reasonable care and precaution which it was his duty to have taken? In considering it I have to be free from the influence of the prejudice resulting from loss of life. The accused was driving a lorry, a heavy vehicle, fully loaded with granite and was after the western curve negotiating a descent on a road which was substandard and where there were no proper signs essential for safe motoring. The fact that several lorries and buses have traversed this road without harm previously, although a weighty matter, cannot tip the balance against the factor that, on the evidence adduced in this case taken as a whole, an accident of this type, or, indeed, in due course a series of accidents of this type, was almost inevitable, and that when such accident occurred it might very well be disastrous. As pw.11 saw the lorry only from a distance of 10 feet the chances are for the accused having seen the bus only from that distance and when he saw the bus he may not have expected that the bus would stop all on a sudden. The accident was not a reasonably foreseeable one. There is no evidence that the accused drove the lorry at a speed which would imperil the safety of others. In the nature and situation of the road through which it was passing and the heavy load in it the lorry could not be stopped all on a sudden and in a few feet. If it dashed against the front side of the bus the passengers in it would have sustained serious injuries. The accused avoided it but he could not avoid the lorry colliding with the hind portion of the bus for which he was not to blame because the bus was lying in a northwesterly direction and when he swerved the lorry a little to the left to avoid greater calamities it knocked down two pedestrians. The cleaner may at that time have jumped out of the cabin. There is no evidence that he was thrown out of it. In my opinion rashness or negligence sufficient to warrant a conviction under S.304-A or S.279 of the IPC. has not been established and the accused was rightly acquitted. The Rule issued from here to the accused is discharged.