ORDER : V Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 06.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.85 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the judgment dated 29.07.2009 in C.C.No.121 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, for the offences under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). All the injured are coolies and they came to Anjimedu Village for their agricultural work. On 11.12.2004 at about 07.00 p.m., after completion of their agricultural work, all of them engaged the crime tractor cum trailer bearing No.AP 03L 5645 and 5646 and went to watch the film. Then they returned to Ilaganuru by the same tractor and trailer. ii). The accused drove the said tractor in a rash and negligent manner, when they reached V.M.Palem Village at about 01.15 a.m., the pin of the tractor was broken, the trailer was separated from the tractor and turned turtle. As a result, they received injuries and all the injured were shifted to hospital by the villagers. The accused escaped from the spot. iii). On receipt of hospital intimation, P.W.13- S.I of Police, Srikalahastri (Urban) Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.185 of 2004 and investigated into. 3. After completion of investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.121 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti and after full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (4) months each for the respective offences and all the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.85 of 2009, before the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the said appeal was dismissed on 06.06.2011 by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused. 5. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.85 of 2009, before the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the said appeal was dismissed on 06.06.2011 by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused. 5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 6. Heard Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the revision petitioner?” 8. Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legal, cogent and reliable evidence to say that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time; that the undisputed fact is that the pin attached to the trailer was broken and unfortunately, the alleged incident was occurred, as such it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner, resulted death of a person as well injuries to ten persons; that there was no rash and negligent manner and the accident is the result of mechanical defect only, which is beyond comprehension of the human being; that there is no legal evidence to fix the liability on the petitioner and that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record, resulted conviction against the accused for the said offences, which is liable to be set aside. 9. 9. As against the same, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the Revisional Court need not reassess or re-appreciate the entire material on record on the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below; that based on the facts this Court has limited jurisdiction in adjudicating material lacunas and irregularities; that admittedly the petitioner was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time and he ought to have taken care and he ought to have verified whether the trailer was properly attached to the tractor or not; that the trial Court has categorically discussed in paragraph No.12 of the judgment regarding responsibility of the driver in failure of the pin attached to the trailer; that all the witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 10, who are eye-witnesses-cum-injured persons, consistently deposed that there was a speed driving of the petitioner and even according to the accused, road on which the tractor and trailer was moving there are ups and downs and also a culvert and the petitioner did not reduce his speed even at the culvert, it clearly shows the negligence on the part of the petitioner/accused, which leads to the accident; that the petitioner has supposed to verify whether the vehicle is in condition or not from taking one place to another, if really the petitioner verified the same, he would have found the link between the tractor and trailer was in damaged condition, thereby, there was negligence on the part of the accused in causing the accident, resulted injuries to fifteen persons and one person died in the incident. 10. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the judgments of the trial Court as well Sessions Court. The short point that arises in this case is, whether the prosecution has able to establish the guilt of the accused for the said offences and there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Rashness not only consists of high speed, but also not taking proper care and caution. Negligence, on the other hand, is a breach of duty cast on a person. Rashness not only consists of high speed, but also not taking proper care and caution. Negligence, on the other hand, is a breach of duty cast on a person. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not placed any material to show the negligence on the part of the petitioner/driver in breach of duty to verify whether the pin between the tractor and trailer was proper or not. Nowhere, in the prosecution case rather did not speak by the prosecution witnesses that the accused/driver has not taken care while moving on the tractor whether the trailer was properly attached to the tractor that too while returning to their village after completion of their work. 11. It is settled law as well submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in a judgment reported in Dr.V.Rugmini v. State of Kerala , 1987 Crl.L.J.200 held that “to sustain a charge of causing death by negligent act it is necessary that death should have been the direct result of the negligent act. That act must be the proximate cause, without any other supervising act or intervention”. 12. Besides that, the learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Kurban Hussein Mohameddali Bangawalla v. State of Maharastra , AIR 1965 SC 1616 , wherein it was held that “to impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, INDIAN PENAL CODE , it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence. It must be the cause causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non” 13. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the vehicle was moving, in particular tractor along with trailer, while plying the vehicle, no driver is expected to verify the pin between the tractor and trailer was properly linked or not. Because, till such a time it was properly linked and moving on and it may not be possible to stop the vehicle by the accused/petitioner rather expect such a situation to avert the accident. 14. Because, till such a time it was properly linked and moving on and it may not be possible to stop the vehicle by the accused/petitioner rather expect such a situation to avert the accident. 14. In this case, the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no negligence attributed to the petitioner in driving the tractor, but he failed to verify the chain rather link is properly done or not. Admittedly, in the present case, there was damage to the pin, resulting trailer lost its connection with tractor and turned turtle, thereby, one person died and ten persons received injuries. 15. The prosecution has to prove by producing the material that there was negligence on the part of the driver or knowingly not taken care to verify whether the link between the tractor and trailer was proper or not at the relevant time. P.Ws.1 to 10 consistently deposed that they all after unloading the rice bags went to watch the movie at Srikalahasti and while returning to their village on the same vehicle and when they reached near V.M.Palem Village at about 01.15 a.m, the pin of the tractor attached to the trailer was broken. As a result, the trailer attached to the tractor was separated and turned turtle. Neither there is a direct witness nor any material to say that the accused is responsible for breaking the pin between the tractor and trailer, which resulted in the accident. 16. From the beginning, it is the prosecution case that there was rash and negligent act of the driver, resulting to the accident. But, nowhere in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 or other evidence show that the breakage of pin to the tractor attached to the trailer was only due to not being properly dealt with by the accused/driver. When there is no material to find guilt of the accused that on his negligence only the incident was occurred because he was not taking care to see that the pin was properly attached or not. When there is no material to find guilt of the accused that on his negligence only the incident was occurred because he was not taking care to see that the pin was properly attached or not. But the other circumstances, which clearly stated by the prosecution, even in its case or in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 show that on the fateful day after unloading the load in Ilaganuru rice mill, on the same tractor went to Srikalahasti to watch the movie and thereafter returned to their village and in the meanwhile the incident was occurred. Even when the tractor is with the load also nothing was happened and while returning to their village, the incident was said to have happened. In those circumstances, simply because P.Ws.1 and 2, 4 to 9 deposed that accused drove the tractor in a speedy manner, it cannot be said that he contributed to the incident. According to the material before the trial Court as well Sessions Court the accident occurred only due to breakage of pin which clubbing to the tractor and trailer, but neither speed nor negligent act of the accused. 17. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts blow misread the evidence and did not discuss as to how the accident was occurred and erroneously came to conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the driver. 18. The crux in this matter is that only due to breakage of the pin attached in between the tractor and trailer did the incident was occurred. For which, it cannot be attributed to the accused, when there is no evidence to say that there is negligence on the part of the driver for the damage of the pin, which was linked between the tractor and trailer and due to damage of the pin only the accident was occurred, which resulted injuries to ten persons and one person died at the hospital while undergoing treatment. 19. Even in the first Appellate Court also, the learned counsel appeared for the accused submitted that there is a turning near the scene of offence and the accident took place as bolt was broken. P.W.16 Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle, did not depose that breakage of bolt is caused due to negligence of the driver. 19. Even in the first Appellate Court also, the learned counsel appeared for the accused submitted that there is a turning near the scene of offence and the accident took place as bolt was broken. P.W.16 Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle, did not depose that breakage of bolt is caused due to negligence of the driver. But he categorically deposed that breakage of the pin which bears the weight of the trailer may cause the break of the bolt, but in this case when the tractor and trailer after unloading the rice bags, this accident was occurred and the while returning to the village, the breakage of bolt to the tractor and its trailer, is the cause of the accident. In this case, opinion regarding mechanical defect of vehicle has some bearing in determining the fact of cause of accident due to breakage of pin attached between the tractor and trailer. 20. In view of the above, admittedly, due to breakage of pin connected in between tractor and trailer, the trailer was separated from the tractor, resulted the incident, for which against the petitioner/accused cannot be attributed any negligence. 21. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court against the present petitioner/accused, is nothing but manifest error and miscarriage of justice, and thereby, the same are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the present criminal revision case is liable to be allowed. 22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused, vide judgment dated 29.07.2009 in C.C.No.121 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, which was confirmed by the judgment dated 06.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.85 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offences under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.