JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was convicted under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Dholpur. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 2. The facts that gave rise to the prosecution of the petitioner, briefly stated, are these : On October 13, 1969, just near Maharaj Bagh in town Badi, a boy named Tulsi was going on a horse accompanied by his mother Smt. Ramdei (P. W. 7) and four others. The truck bearing number RJR 2249 came from behind and dashed against the horse as a result of which the boy fell down. In that process, the boy sustained injuries and died on the spot. 3. The prosecution case was that the petitioner drove the truck rashly and negligently and therefore he was liable to be punished under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In support of the case of prosecution, reliance was placed on the evidence of Shankerlal (P. W. 1), Babulal (P. W. 3), Bhompal (P. W. 4), Jagannath (P.W.5), Ramdei wife of Gangadhar (P.W. 6) and Ramdei wife of Karansingh (P.W 7), of these witnesses, Babulal (P.W.3), Bhompal (P. W. 4), Jagannath (P. W. 5) and Ramdei (P. W. 6) did not support the case of the prosecution. The two witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution, stated that the vehicle driven by the petitioner, came in a great speed and dashed against the horse, while the horse was going on the left side of the road. To that extent, the evidence has been accepted by the courts below. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that this finding by the courts below is perverse and totally opposed to the circumstances available in the case. It is an admitted fact that the rear right wheel was stained with blood. This, according to the prosecution, indicated that wheel ran over the boy. If that were to be so, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted. However, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State contended that after the truck dashed against the horse and the rider fell down and in that process the rear right wheel of the truck ran over. If that were to be so, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted. However, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State contended that after the truck dashed against the horse and the rider fell down and in that process the rear right wheel of the truck ran over. This argument is difficult to accept and that is not the case put forward by the prosecution. 5. The defence of the accused was that he was going on with moderate speed and that the horse came suddenly infront, he applied his brakes, but brakes failed and therefore he could not avoid the accident. That version of the accused-petitioner finds support in the evidence of the Inspector, Motor Vehicles, who has been examined as P. W. 9. P.W. 9 has stated that when he examined the vehicle, he found that the brakes were not operating. In these circumstances, the courts below totally failed to take into consideration the admitted circumstances and mechanically considered all the evidence of the eye witnesses, with the result that they have come to a wrong finding. 6. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused petitioner and acquit him of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail and need not surrender to the bait bonds. *******