JUDGMENT O.P.Pradhan (1.) IN this revision, the conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate I. Rae Bareli under Section 304A I.P.C., and affirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in appeal, have been challenged. (2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Ashok Kumar Bajpai and his uncle Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari were going to Lalganj on separate bicycles at about 9.30 a.m. on 5.5.1979. Ashok Kumar Bajpai was a little ahead of Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari. They were going on the left Patri of the road. A jeep bearing No. M.M.B. 6379 came from behind and knocked down Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari, who fell on the road and sustained serious injuries. THE jeep driver stopped the Jeep and wanted to flee but Ashok Kumar Bajpai and others who were around, succeeded in apprehending him. They took the injured Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari on the same jeep driven by the jeep driver to the Police Station Lalganj where a written-report of the incident was lodged by Ashok Kumar Bajpai at 9.45 a.m. Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, after the first-aid given to him at the Primary Health Centre, Lalganj. The revisionist, who was driver of the jeep, was prosecuted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. I. Rae Bareli The prosecution examined seven witnesses and two witnesses were examined by the court itself. The revisionist denied that he was responsible for the death of Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari. The revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed false Implication on account of enmity with the Police. He, however stated during the examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that he was driving the jeep on Fatehpur road to Lalganj and the deceased was going on the cycle speedily. He blew the horn upon which the deceased became upset and nervous and dashed the cycle against a tree. He, thereafter, stopped his jeep and brought the injured to the Polios Station where he was falsely involved in this case. The revisionist, however, did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence adduced before him found the revisionist guilty under Section 304A, I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo two years' R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. The revisionist, however, did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence adduced before him found the revisionist guilty under Section 304A, I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo two years' R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default to undergo six months' more R.I. The appeal preferred against this order of conviction and sentence met with failure at the hands of II Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. Hence this revision. (3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as also the learned Government Advocate and perused the lower court record including the impugned Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It has been urged on behalf of the revisionist that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that the revisionist was driving the jeep rashly or negligently and that Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari died as a result of the rash or negligent driving of the jeep by the revisionist. (4.) BEFORE considering the question mooted by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it would be advisable to notice the law on the point of rash or negligent driving. The learned counsel for the revisionist cited following cases in this behalf: (i) 1970 Accidents Claims Journal 267 (Rajasthan)-Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan (ii) 1979 Crl. Law Journal NOC 150-B. D. Vittal Shetty v. State of Karnataka; (iii) 1981 Crl. Law Journal 583-Bijuli Swain v. State of Orissa, (iv) 1982 Crl. Law Journal NOC 192-Padmacharan Naik v. The State; (v) 1983 Crl. Law Journal 535-Mohammad Safaque v. State. The law which emerges from a perusal of these reported cases as also the decisions of the Apex Court may be summed up as follows: The death caused must be the direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. In other words, it must be the causa causans ; it is not enough that it must have been the cause sine qua non. Merely from high speed, rashness and negligence cannot be ascertained and there must be direct nexus between the death of the person and rash and negligent act of the accused. There is a distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. Merely from high speed, rashness and negligence cannot be ascertained and there must be direct nexus between the death of the person and rash and negligent act of the accused. There is a distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. In the case of rash act, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Otherwise stated, culpable negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do and a culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precaution to prevent their happening. (5.) BOTH the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the revisionist was responsible for the accident which was caused by his rash and negligent driving of the jeep. It has also not been disputed in this court that the revisionist was driving the jeep in question. The version given by the revisionist under Section 313, Cr. P.C., regarding the incident has been rightly rejected by the lower courts. I have not been persuaded to take a different view of the matter on that score. (6.) THIS apart, there is evidence of Ashok Kumar Bajpai P.W. 1, Budhi Lal P.W. 2, Devi Dayal P.W. 3 and Suraj Bal P.W. 6 to establish that Tribhuwan Nath was, knocked down by the speeding jeep and that the revisionist, who wanted to escape soon after the accident, was apprehended immediately. Budhi Lal P.W. 2 had a cycle-repairs shop near about the place of occurrence and he has stated that there was no customer at the relevant time. Budhi Lal P.W. 2 had a cycle-repairs shop near about the place of occurrence and he has stated that there was no customer at the relevant time. He clearly stated that the jeep which came from behind had knocked down the victim, Tribhuwan Nath and that the jeep was being driven negligently and rashly. Ashok Kumar Bajpai, P.W. 1 was going ahead of Tribhuwan Nath and he also noticed that the jeep which was coming from behind, had hit Tribhuwan Nath who thereupon fell on the ground. The jeep was also stopped a few paces ahead of the place where Tribhuwan Nath had fallen on the ground. It is also clear from his statement in cross-examination that the front wheel of the jeep was stained with blood. Devi Dayal, P.W. 3 had a betel shop near about the place of occurrence and he also stated that Ashok Kumar Bajpai, P.W. 1 and the deceased had taken betels from his shop and thereafter they had started towards Lalganj on their bicycles, the deceased was knocked down by the jeep coming from behind. A few answers elicited during the cross-examination of these witnesses were read over to demonstrate that none of these witnesses had actually seen the actual incident. It is difficult to reverse the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below on this score merely on the basis of isolated sentences of their evidence in cross-examination. It appears that the revisionist had not taken reasonable precautions while driving the jeep so as to avoid the accident which ultimately resulted in the untimely death of the victim, Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari. While driving the jeep, it was the imperative duty of the revisionist to exercise reasonable and proper care and precautions to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular. It was broad day light when the incident occurred and the jeep was also found in perfect order on technical examination. I am, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the revisionist was driving the jeep negligently and that Tribhuwan Nath died as a result of negligent driving of the Jeep at the hands of the revisionist. There is no compelling reason to disturb the concurrent finding reached on this score by the Courts below. Now remains the question of sentence. There is no compelling reason to disturb the concurrent finding reached on this score by the Courts below. Now remains the question of sentence. The revisionist has been awarded two years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2000. It is in evidence that the revisionist himself stopped the jeep immediately after the incident and he also carried the injured. Tribhuwan Nath to the Police Station on the same jeep. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, I feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the revisionist is reduced to six months' R.I. without disturbing the sentence of fine. (7.) WHILE affirming the conviction of the revisionist under Section 304A, I.P.C., the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the Courts below is reduced to six months' R.I. but the sentence of fine with its default clause is maintained. With this modification in sentence, the revision is partly allowed. (8.) THE revisionist is on bail granted by this Court. He will surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed by this Court. THE interim stay order regarding realisation of fine is hereby vacated. One month's time is however allowed to deposit the fine in the Court of learned Magistrate. Let the record of the courts; below be sent back within fifteen days positively. Appeal partly allowed.