ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The appellant was tried for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A Indian Penal Code and Sections 89(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicles Act. The case against him is that he was driving a car on March 14, 1981 at about 7.30 p.m. and knocked down the deceased Prabhakaran who was coming in opposite direction and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries on his head and died in the hospital. The trial court acquitted him holding that there was no rash or negligent driving. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court having considered the evidence of PW 1 as well as other witnesses, including the evidence of the doctor, convicted him under Sections 279 and 304 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him under Section 304-A to undergo 6 months' RI and no separate sentence was awarded for offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. In this appeal the learned counsel submits that the trial court has given good reasons for acquitting the accused and the High Court erred in interfering with the order of acquittal. 3. There is no dispute that the accused was driving the car, but according to the learned counsel, the car was proceeding on a public road and the deceased crossed suddenly and the same resulted in an accident which cannot be said that the appellant was driving the car rashly and negligently. This is a question which depends upon the merits in each case. The evidence on record i.e. of PW 1 shows that the deceased was crossing the road at a distance of 50 feet away from the running car. In such a situation it would not have been impossible for the accused to apply brakes. That apart, the number of injuries would show that the impact must have been very severe. The appellant without stopping the car sped away. This circumstance would go to show that he acted rashly and negligently. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. But having regard to the fact that the incident took place in the year 1981, the sentence is reduced to 3 months' RI. The payment of fine with default clause, if any, is confirmed. The appellant shall surrender and serve out the remaining portion of sentence, if any. But having regard to the fact that the incident took place in the year 1981, the sentence is reduced to 3 months' RI. The payment of fine with default clause, if any, is confirmed. The appellant shall surrender and serve out the remaining portion of sentence, if any. With this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.