ORDER K. Sadasivan, J. The convicted accused is the revision petitioner. He was the driver of a stage carriage bus belonging to the Ananthakrishna Motor Service bearing registration No. K.L.C. 3335, which on 30th December 1968 at about 11-30 a.m. while proceeding from east to west along the Peechi-Trichur road loaded with passengers dashed against a Fiat Car K.L.R. 7158 which was proceeding ahead of it and by the force of the collision, one Narayanankutty Menon who was seated on the front seat of the car left to the driver, was thrown into the road and died instantaneously. A little child Rajeshkumar who was also seated on the front seat was thrown aside. Narayanankutty Menon's wife and others who were seated on the back seat were injured. Rajeshkumar succumbed to the injuries at the hospital on 1st January 1969, The other injured survived. The bus was loaded with Marxist Communists, who on their return from Ernakulam, where they had gone to attend a convention, went to Peechi to relax themselves and were returning from Peechi to Trichur in high spirits shouting slogans through mike attached to the bus. The occurrence took place at Ollukkara in front of the panchayat office. At that point a lorry K.L.D. 3320 was stationed on the northern extremity of the road facing east. The car was driven by P.W. 1. Seeing the bus, coming at high speed and trying to overtake the pleasure car, P. W. 1 stretched his right hand through the window and gave the slow-down signal for the bus to slow down. But unmindful of the signal shown by him the bus came at dangerous speed and tried to overtake the car budging in along the space in between the lorry and the pleasure car and in so doing, it first collided with the stationed lorry and then took a turn towards the south and dashed against the pleasure car. By the force of the impact, the pleasure car turned a little to the right and then the bus hit against it a second time and by the force of the second hit the front left-door of the car gave way throwing out the two occupants of the front seat of the car. The car then turned turtle and fell into the ditch on the southern side, causing injuries to the other occupants of the car. The car then turned turtle and fell into the ditch on the southern side, causing injuries to the other occupants of the car. A little to the west of it the bus stopped. The defence version of the occurrence is that the bus was proceeding ahead of the pleasure car and in the attempt by the driver of the pleasure car to overtake the bus, it first dashed against the lorry and then against the bus, and it is in that manner that Narayanankutty Menon and the child happened to be thrown away and injuries happened to be sustained by the other persons travelling in the car. This version has been disbelieved by the learned Magistrate and he has found the accused guilty under section 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. and sentenced him under section 304-A to R.I. for one year. No separate sentence has been awarded under the other counts. The accused has also been disqualified from possessing a driving licence for a period of 6 months as provided under section 17 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act 4/1939 as amended by Act 56/69. The conviction and sentence have been confirmed, in appeal, by the Sessions Judge of Trichur. I see no reason to interfere either with the conviction or the sentence passed against the accused. Regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place, we have the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, besides that of P.W. 1 the driver of the car. P.W. 3 was one of the persons seated on the back seat of the car. P.W. 2 is an independent witness, a person who was standing on the road side at the time of the collision. P.Ws. 8 and 9 who were also cited to prove the occurrence turned hostile. On the side of the accused, D.W. 1 who was one of the persons travelling in the bus was examined. He has supported the defence version of the occurrence; but the learned Magistrate for convincing and cogent reasons has disbelieved his testimony. First and foremost is that he is a Marxist Communist, who along with his compatriots were returning that day after attending their convention at Ernakulam in a highly excited and ebullient mood. In addition, it has come in the evidence that he had special consideration for the accused as the latter was bailed out by him. First and foremost is that he is a Marxist Communist, who along with his compatriots were returning that day after attending their convention at Ernakulam in a highly excited and ebullient mood. In addition, it has come in the evidence that he had special consideration for the accused as the latter was bailed out by him. The bus was also released by him on 'moonnam-sthanam'. In the face of these proved circumstances, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. P.W. 1, no doubt, was the driver of the ill-fated car. It might be argued that he is interested in the prosecution; but on a scrutiny of his evidence, it would appear that he has given only a truthful version, which is only consistent with the circumstances in the case. The F.I. statement was lodged by him before the police within 1 or 2 hours of the occurrence. The version given by him in the F.I. statement has fully been supported by the evidence in the case. The slow-down signal was given by him at the correct time; but that was ignored by the accused who dashed on in spite of it. The fact that the slow-down signal was given by him was stated by him in Ext. P-1 itself. P.W. 2 is one Mani who was at the time an employee in a mill close to the scene of occurrence. He just got out into the road to take his tea from an adjoining tea shop. Just within a few seconds the vehicles collided resulting in the instantaneous death of Narayanankutty Menon. The prosecution version in all its details is spoken to by this witness. No discrediting circumstance was put forward in respect of his evidence except stating that it is unlikely that at that part of the day he would have come out for taking his tea. I do not see anything improbable in it. In another minor detail he had gone wrong, that is, that he stated that the child was sitting on the lap of Narayanankutty Menon, while in fact, the child was seated only by the side and not on the lap. I do not think that this can be treated as a material contradiction. This witness was questioned by the police just within 1 or 2 hours of the occurrence, and. I do not think that this can be treated as a material contradiction. This witness was questioned by the police just within 1 or 2 hours of the occurrence, and. the version given by him to the police and that given before court are identical without any contradiction. P.W. 3 was seated in the back seat. She also swears to all the details. Both these witnesses had seen the slow-down signal given by P.W. 1 to the bus coming from behind. On a careful scrutiny of the occurrence as presented by the prosecution it can safely be presumed that the accused was rash and negligent in handling his vehicle at the time. The road at that point runs straight and even from a considerably long distance from the place, the accused could have seen the stationed lorry to the north of the road. Only a few feet of the road was then left for the passing vehicles and at least some 6 or 7 feet of the road must have been occupied by the pleasure car. The place still left must normally have been too small for the bus to pass along freely. It was in view of this vital circumstance that the slow-down signal was given by P.W. 1. It is possible that the accused had lost himself in the din and bustle of the slogans shouted through the mike and the over-enthusiasm of the person who had huddled together in the bus. The enthusiasm shown by the occupants of the bus might probably have been shared by the accused and in this confused state, the accused evidently had forgotten his duty to take care and if only he had shown care and circumspection of an ordinary prudent man, the risk could have, been avoided. It cannot but be found that he was guilty of criminal or culpable rashness. In the case of In re Nidamarti Nagabhushanam (7 Mad. H.C.R. 119) Gour's Penal Law of India, (8th Edn. Vol. It cannot but be found that he was guilty of criminal or culpable rashness. In the case of In re Nidamarti Nagabhushanam (7 Mad. H.C.R. 119) Gour's Penal Law of India, (8th Edn. Vol. 3, p. 2138) Halloway, J., said: "Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening, the imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness." In Empress of India v. Idu Beg I.L.R.3 All.776 Straight, J., observed: "Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and that it may cause injury but without the intension to cause injury or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences." That the accused has acted in the present case with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences cannot at all be doubted. The learned counsel relying on a stray circumstance that some red paint was seen on the right side of the car and green paint on the right side of the bus, argued that the driver of the car must be found to have been negligent or rash in driving his vehicle. From the mahazar it appears that the lorry is painted red and that the car is painted light green. The bus, on the other hand has aluminium paint. From the above circumtances, the learned counsel's contention is that the presence of red paint on the side of the car is an indication that the car had dashed against the stationed lorry and again from the presence of green paint on the body of the bus it must be inferred that it has dashed against the bus also. I do not think, from the above circumstance, that such an inference could unmistakably be drawn. There are, on the other hand stronger circumstances speaking to the contrary. Light green paint was found on the bumper of the bus. This has been recorded in Ext. P-14 mahazar and deposed to by P.W. 10 the head constable. This, I think, is an unmistakable circumstance to show that the bus must have had a direct hit against the body of the car. Light green paint was found on the bumper of the bus. This has been recorded in Ext. P-14 mahazar and deposed to by P.W. 10 the head constable. This, I think, is an unmistakable circumstance to show that the bus must have had a direct hit against the body of the car. The case of the prosecution is that after its first hit against the lorry, the bus turned to the left and hit against the car. This version is rendered very much probable by the above circumstance. Another circumstance is that the front right side mudguard and the front right side bumper of the lorry were badly damaged. "The mudguard was damaged and 'd' shaped. Right side of the front bumper bent and, damaged and both headlight frames 'D' shaped. Corresponding to this the right side headlight, right side park light and surrounding portions of the frontage of the vehicle were damaged and pushed inward. Front bumper was seen bent inward and 'D' shaped." This is possible only by a collision of these two vehicles, viz., the lorry and the bus. Taking into consideration the height of the headlight from the ground level both in the case of the bus and the lorry, it cannot be said that those parts can be damaged by the front side of the car coming into contact with those parts. That can happen only if the bus and the lorry collide, since the corresponding height in the case of these two vehicles is more or less the same. It is thus a clear case of collision between these two vehicles. Along with this, the damage caused to the pleasure car has also to be considered. "Its body top damaged and 'D' shaped, right side of the body from front end to rear up to rear fender body damaged and 'D' shaped including both right side doors, front right side fender body damaged and 'D' shaped and blocked the front right side wheel rotation, front both headlight grills and bonnet are badly damaged and 'D' shaped, front left side fender and mudguard badly damaged and crembled and blocked to rotation of that side wheel." The point to be noticed in regard to the car is that the right side doors were badly damaged and pushed inward, which would show that some vehicle from the right side must have come and hit against it. This is only consistent with the prosecution case that the car was proceeding along the southern side of the road, which is the proper side for it and that the bus came from the northern side and hit against it. These facts are further proved by the photographs produced in the case. Exts. P-3 to P-6 are the photographs. Ext. P-3 is the photo of the lorry, Ext. P-4 that of the car, Ext. P-5 that of the bus and Ext. P-6 the full size photo of the bus. The only objection taken against the photographs is that the photographer has not been examined in the case; but the fact cannot be denied that these are the photos of the bus, lorry and the car involved in the instant case because the registration numbers of these three vehicles are clearly seen from the number plate. Had it been the case of the car overtaking the bus as is now contended by the accused, this circumstance, viz., that the right side doors were damaged and pushed inside could not have happened. Thus considered in the light of all these circumstances, the other fact that some red paint was found on the side of the car or that some green paint found on the body of the bus cannot have an overriding effect. In the course of the collision it is possible that the vehicle had rubbed against each other and in that process the paint happened to be found like that. I have no doubt, in the light of the evidence in the case, that the accused was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle. Learned counsel then put forward another unsustainable contention. He stated that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary nexus between the accused's rashness or negligence and the death of the victim. The law is that: "To impose criminal liability under section 304A, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non." [Vide Kishan Chand v. State (1970 (2) S.C.W.R. 655)] I do not see any basis for the argument. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non." [Vide Kishan Chand v. State (1970 (2) S.C.W.R. 655)] I do not see any basis for the argument. In my view there is direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash or negligent act of the accused. Learned counsel endeavoured to show that the front left door of the car had given way by accident and if that had not happened Narayanankutty Menon and the child would not have been thrown away and their death could have been averted. But it is not possible in the light of the circumstances proved in the case that the front door had opened by mere accident. The Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, P.W. 7 has stated in his evidence that by a hit against right door, the corresponding left door may give way. We have already seen from the evidence of the head constable and the mahazars of the respective vehicles that the right front door of the car was hit against and that force had led to the opening of the corresponding left door. Even if the door is locked this can happen according to P.W. 7. In the face of this clear circumstance, I see little scope for the contention that the death is not the direct result of the collision. The driver is guilty of criminal negligence also, in that he had failed to apply the brake in time. "The driver is under a duty of using whatever means are at hand to avoid a threatened collision. The most obvious means of avoiding the collision is to apply the brakes with which the car must be equipped. It will constitute culpable negligence, if a driver drives a vehicle with Patently defective brakes or fails to apply the brakes in time. " [Vide In re Parthasarathy A.I.R. 1959 Madras 497] In the present case P.W. 5 the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector has given evidence to the effect that the brake system of the bus was perfect. The evidence shows that the brake was applied only after the final hit against the car and the car capsizing in the gutter on the southern side of the road. The conviction and sentence, in the circumstances, have only to be confirmed. I do accordingly and dismiss this revision petition.