Judgment : Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J: This appeal is directed against an order dated 22.12.75 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sealdah in C.R. No. 1014 of 1968 whereby the accused respondent Mahadeo Prasad was acquitted of the charges framed against him by the said learned Magistrate. The charges framed against Mahadeo were for the offences under S. 279/304A IPC and under S. 118 Motor Vehicles Act. The charges aforesaid were framed by the Magistrate on the basis of the facts as alleged by the prosecution as follows : 2. On 1.5.68 at about 5.45 p.m. one Triloki Nath Singh, a boy aged 5 years was crossing the junction of Beliaghata Road and Shibtola Lane and in so doing was dashed and knocked down by a State bus which was being driven at the very high speed by the driver- accused Mahadeo Prasad Shaw. So great was the impact of the bus as against the body of that poor boy that the poor boy had to did instantly on the spot did not care to blow any horn. 3. In all 5 eye-witnesses deposed before the learned Magistrate They gave out that the boy Triloki met with the accident because he wanted to cross the road at that office time. Learned Magistrate relied upon the well known Supreme Court case reported in 1972 Cr LJ page 49 (Mahadeo Hari v. State of Maharasta). The learned Magistrate observed that as the boy was crossing the road it was not possible for the driver to save the accident. The learned Magistrate acquit fed the driver Mahadeo Prasad of the charge under S. 118A of the Motor Vehicles Act because he found that immediately after the accident the bus driver along with the bus went straight inside the local Police Station. The learned Magistrate also acquitted Mahadeo Prasad of the charges under S. 304A and 279 IPC because he found that the driver was neither rash nor negligent. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal the State of West Bengal has preferred the instant appeal Mrs. Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the State has taken us through the evidence of 5 witnesses viz. P.W. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 and has contended on the strength of their deposition that Mahadeo the accused-respondent was extremely rash and negligent in the matter of his driving the bus concerned. Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the State has taken us through the evidence of 5 witnesses viz. P.W. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 and has contended on the strength of their deposition that Mahadeo the accused-respondent was extremely rash and negligent in the matter of his driving the bus concerned. Let us now see what was exactly deposed to by the aforesaid witnesses. 5. PW. 1 is Chunilal Saha, a local shop keeper. He said that "as the boy was crossing the road, the bus knocked down the boy and he died instantly". We further hear him saying that "the bus was being driven at a very high speed, the speed at which the State bus run". In other words, the evidence of P.W. 1 is that the State Bus was being driven at its usual moderate speed. 6. P.W. 2 is Harendra Nath Singh who was the elder brother of the deceased. His evidence is that at the time of occurrence Triloki was being accompanied by him, that while he successfully crossed to road, his brother could not because he was 7/8 steps behind him. Thus from the testimony of the elder brother we get that Triloki could never be dashed by the State bus, if he had been correctly guided by his elder brother. His elder brother saved himself by quickly crossing the road but he could not at the same time save his own brother and he had left alone that 5 year old brother without caring to catch hold of him by his bands in their joint bid to cross the busy Beliaghata Road. 7. The next witnesses P.W. 3 Baidyanath who happens to be a local shop keeper deposed by saying that Harendra Nath was ahead of Triloki on the road and that the left rear wheel of the bus came in contact with the held of the boy. 8. The other 2 witnesses were the conductors of the State bus of which Mahadeo Prasad was the driver. From the P.W. 5 Narayan Chandra Das, conductor, it appears that the bus had just crossed over a Railway Bridge and was sloping downwards, that after the boy was run over, the driver did not stop the bus and he drove straight to Beliaghata Police Station. From the P.W. 5 Narayan Chandra Das, conductor, it appears that the bus had just crossed over a Railway Bridge and was sloping downwards, that after the boy was run over, the driver did not stop the bus and he drove straight to Beliaghata Police Station. The witness Dhirendra Nath Talukdar, P.W. 7 the other driver also coroborated P.W. 5 and gave out that the bus had just crossed the Railway Bridge and was descending down along the slope when the impact occurred and the boy was run over. 9. From the evidence as adduced by the aforesaid eye-witnesses of the Case one thing is clear viz that the bus was being driven in its usual mode-rate speed and not at a very high speed. As a matter of fact it was not possible for the driver to run the bus at a very high speed inasmuch as the bus had just crossed a Railway Bridge and was sloping downwards. It is Also clear from the testimony of the eye witnesses that the elder brother took the great risk of crossing the Beliaghata Road unnecessarily at office hours when usually the well know Beliaghata Road remains thoroughly busy and overcrowded. From the evidence in cross-examination of the Harendra Nath it has come out that the deceased was 7/8 steps behind him when he was crossing the Beliaghata Road. This clearly implies that Harendra had forgotten everything about his younger brother, that he was himself busy to cross the road and that if he had crossed the road by catching hold of the hands of the lad aged 5 years, the accident could have been well averted. 10. In the above facts and circumstances as disclosed in evidence during trial we do not see how Mahadeo Prasad driver can be characterised as rash and negligent. Nor do we find that the learned Magistrate committed any wrong in relying upon the Supreme Court decision reported in 1972 Cr. LJ page 49 (Mahadeo Hari vs. State of Maharastra). In the Supreme Court case, the deceased Rabikant was said to be crossing the highway known as C. P. Tank Road. There the impact took place when Rabikant was attempting to cross the road. LJ page 49 (Mahadeo Hari vs. State of Maharastra). In the Supreme Court case, the deceased Rabikant was said to be crossing the highway known as C. P. Tank Road. There the impact took place when Rabikant was attempting to cross the road. Closely resembling our case, the deceased in the reported case was dasbed by the left rear wheel/mudguard of the bus "If a person suddenly crosses a roan, so observed the Supreme Court, the bus driver however solwly the bus may be driven, may not be in a position to save the accident". This observation of the Supreme Court is well applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, for here in this case as we have already seen, the 5 year old boy unlike Rabikant, an adult was crossing the busy road himself and no wonder that the boy would be struck down by the bus which was sloping downwards after crossing the Railway Bridge. It is thus clear from what has been stated so far that where a little boy of 5 years is let loose by his elder brother/associate in the midst of a busy public road and the boy is thereafter knocked down by the left wheel of a bus sloping downwards in its usual moderate speed, the driver cannot be accused of rash and negligent driving simply because the driver did not blow the horn. The learned Magistrate therefore in our opinion did nothing wrong in acquitting the accused respondent in respect of this offence under S. 304A and 279 I.P.C. The accused respondent was also rightly acquitted of the charge under S. 118A of Motor Vehicles Act, because the .admitted evidence on record is that immediately after the accident the accused driver drove straight to the nearest police station along with the bus. There is thus no substance in the present appeal. In the result, the appeal fails. The judgment of acquittal in question stands confirmed N.G. Chaudhuri, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.