P.D. Rajan, J.

1. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 1994 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Pathanamthitta by the accused. He was charge sheeted in C.C. No.101 of 1993 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months under Section 304(A) IPC. Against that, he preferred the above Criminal Appeal, where the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that the accused preferred this revision petition.

2. The charge against the accused is that on 15.06.1993 at 11.00 a.m., he had driven a KSRTC bus KL-15-0456 through Kozhencherry Pathanamthitta public road in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life. When he reached near the traffic junction, Pathanamthitta, the bus hit on the back side of a scooter KL-3A-971 as a result, the scooter rider fell down and the rear wheel of the bus run over the scooter rider, thereby he died at the spot itself. Pathanamthitta police registered a crime and after completing investigation, Circle Inspector, Pathanamthitta laid charge in the trial court. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and marked Exts.P1 to P8 as documentary evidence. MO1 was admitted as material object. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence.

3. The rash and negligent driving have been explained by the Apex Court in S.N. Hussain v. State of A.P. [1972 (3) Supreme Court Cases 18] which reads as follows:

(i). Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with the recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, 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.

(ii) Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case.

4. The first contention advanced by the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that there was no rash and negligent driving at the place of occurrence. But the evidence of PW5 discloses that the revision petitioner was rash and negligent at the place of occurrence. PW5, the Police Constable, attending duty at the traffic point, Municipal junction, Pathanamthitta who saw the incident, is the main occurrence witness. His evidence shows that on 15.06.1993 at 11.30 a.m., he was on duty at traffic junction, Pathanamthitta, he gave stop signal to the vehicles proceeding towards private bus stand from Kozhencherry-Pathanamthitta road for clear access to the vehicles coming towards the private bus stand. PW6 was also present at traffic junction and supported PW5. At that time, the deceased came there in a scooter through the Kozhencherry-Pathanamthitta road and PW6 gave stop signal to the vehicle, accordingly the deceased stopped his vehicle and waited for further signal. After sometime, he gave signal to the vehicles running through the Kozhenchery-Pathanamthitta Public road, at that time, the revision petitioner had driven the KSRTC bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the back side of the scooter. Due to the impact, the scooter rider fell down on the road and the rear wheel of the K.S.R.