JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioner was convicted by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Behror on January 27, 1975 under section 304A I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default of fine to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. He preferred an appeal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar but under his judgment dated April 21, 1976 maintained the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. Hence this revision. 2. Rohtash Singh was going on a cycle from Gandala to Majri in order to attend his school on November 24, 1973 at about 10 a.m. Bus No. 4550 was coming from the opposite direction, that is from the side of Majri village. Seeing the bus, Rohtash Singh is said to have taken his cycle towards his left but still, accused petitioner who was driving the bus collided the bus against the cycle of Rohtash Singh as a result of which Rohtash Singh received injuries, and the bus fell in a nearby ditch. Rohtash Singh was admitted in the hospital but he died. A report Ex. P.1-A of the incident was lodged by Sohan PW 2, the uncle of the deceased and a case was registered. The bus was mechanically inspected but because it was in a serious damaged condition, it could not be known as to what was the cause of the accident. 3. The accused petitioner admitted that he was driving the vehicle on the day of the accident but with the plea that he was not driving it rashly and negligently. The plea of the accused was that he was coming from Delhi towards Behror and near the place of the accident the road was in a damaged condition, a boy was coming on cycle on wrong side, he blew the horn, the boy all of a sudden tried to cross the road and tried to come from the wrong side to the right side, he applied the brakes but the tie rod was broken and inspite of best efforts, he could not save the accident. The accused examined two witnesses in defence namely Chhotelal and Matadin. Both of them professed to be the passengers of the bus at the time of the accident. They supported the plea of the accused. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The accused examined two witnesses in defence namely Chhotelal and Matadin. Both of them professed to be the passengers of the bus at the time of the accident. They supported the plea of the accused. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The learned Sessions Judge also maintained the conviction of the accused. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge has not placed reliance on the evidence of Sohan PW 2 and Jagdish Prasad PW 3 and placing reliance on the statement of Janardhan Sharma PW 5 who was also a passenger in the bus, he has convicted the accused petitioner. The learned advocate submits that the learned Sessions Judge has misread the statement of Janardhan Sharma PW 5 and from his statement it appears that the accused was not driving the bus rashly and negligently.Rather it was deceased Rohtash singh who all of a sudden tried to cross the road and brakes were applied by the accused but the tie rod was broken, brakes did not work and, therefore, the accident took place. Janardhan Sharma PW 5 has clearly stated that the speed of the bus was only 10-25 miles per hour. A boy was riding the cycle on the road in opposite direction and when the bus was at a distance of about 20-25 steps, all of a sudden the boy tried to cross the road to come to his left, the accused applied the brakes but somehow the accident happened. It can, therefore, be said that the accused did what was expected of him but it was the deceased all of a sudden crossed the road and because the tie rod was broken, the accident took place. The Mechanic Chhaju Singh PW 1 has not stated that there was any earlier defect in the tie rod which could have been known by the driver even if he had tried to see it before driving the bus. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the inference and conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused was driving the bus rashly and negligently and as a result of this the accident happened was not correct. 5. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the inference and conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused was driving the bus rashly and negligently and as a result of this the accident happened was not correct. 5. I, therefore, allow this revision petition and set aside the judgment of the learned trial court convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner u/s. 304A I.P.C. I will acquit the accused of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds which shall stand cancelled, fine if paid shall be refunded to him.Revision Allowed. *******