JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated October 10, 1977 of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, by which the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 304 A. I. P. C. and the Sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50/ - in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment, the present revision petition is filed. 2. On May 23, 1969 at about 3 P. M. Bajranglal while riding the cycle met with an accident with the jeep which accused petitioner was driving. It is alleged that when Bajranglal was going on cycle from South to East on the metalled road which goes from Station to Dungargarh, accused entered the main road from a side lane and Bajranglal was struck, fell down and received injuries and died. A report Ex. P. 2 of the incident was lodged by Govind Ram, P. W, 6. Bajranglal was taken to the hospital where he died. The plea of the accused petitioner was of bare denial and accused did not examine any witness in defence. Concluding that the accused was driving the jeep rashly or negligently and that he struck with Bajranglal with his jeep the learned courts convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 3. It is contended by learned Advocate for the accused petitioner that the learned appellate court has read one portion of the statement of Govindram, P. W. 6 and of Chuna Ram P. W. 3. He submits that it has come in the statement of Govindram P. W. 6 that there was slope on the road and the cycle was on the slope at the time of the accident. It is also admitted by Govindram, P. W. 6th at possibility cannot be excluded that deceased himself might have struck with the jeep. Thus on the material on record it can be said that the accused was coming from a lane, entered the main road, deceased came from south riding on a cycle, there was slope on the road at that place, the accident took place and the vehicle was stopped at two paces by the accused. The question is as to whether from these circumstances an inference of rash. or negligent driving of the vehicle of accused is possible. 4. The question is as to whether from these circumstances an inference of rash. or negligent driving of the vehicle of accused is possible. 4. The rule of the road is that when a vehicle enters the main road from a side lane, it is duty of the driver of the vehicle to stop at the mouth of the lane, see on either side as to whether the road is clear or not and only then take a turn. While taking a turn to the left it must be taken as close to the left side as possible and while taking a turn to the right it should be taken to the extreme right of the road. In the instant case looking to the facts which have been stated earlier, it cannot be said that the accused was driving his vehicle rashly or negligently. It has come in the evidence that at the time of the accident the jeep was on the left side of the road. Thus, in the facts of the case, no case is made out that the vehicle was driven by the accused-petitioner rashly or negligently. 5. In the result I allow the revision petition, set aside the judgment of the courts below convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner under section 304A I. P. C. The accused is acquitted of the charges under Section 304A I.P.C. The accused is on bail and need not surrender to bail bonds which shall stand discharged. Sd/- M.B. Sharma J.Revision allowed, Accused acquitted. *******