The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a direct nexus between the accused's rash or negligent act and the resulting harm, as well as the court's reliance on evidence to establish the culpability of the accused.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the order and judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A. No. 32 of 1998 dated 16-4-1998 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli in C.C. No. 47 of 1996 dated 27-1-1998.

2. The short facts are : On 18-5-1995 at 11.15 a.m., the bus bearing Registration No. TB-74-NO286 belonging to the Nesamani Transport Corporation was driven by the revision petitioner from south to north i.e. from Nagercoil to Tirunelveli, while in the opposite direction, i.e., from Tirunelveli to Nagercoil, the jeep bearing Registration No. TCP 8518 was driven.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the revision petitioner drove the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep, with the result, three passengers in the bus, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were injured and the four persons in the jeep died at the spot. After investigation, charge sheet under section 279, IPC one count, 337, IPC three counts, 304A, IPC four counts were filed by the Investigation Officer, 13 witnesses were examined, 16 exhibits and two material objects were marked on the side of the prosecution. No one was examined on the side of the revision petitioner or any document was marked. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial Magistrate concluded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. Therefore he found him guilty under all charges. For the offence under Section 279, IPC he sentenced the revision petitioner to under go simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to under go simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under section 337, IPC, he was sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for three months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- on each of the counts in default to under go simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under section 304A, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each of the four counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the counts and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Total fine is Rs. 9,000/-. Aggrieved with the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner has preferred C.A. No. 32 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The learned Principal Sessions Judge on a reappraisal of the evidence concurred with the reasoning of the learned trial Magistrate, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

4. The point for determination is whether both the Courts below have committed an error of law and their finding is perverse ?

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 the eye witnesses to the occurrence and submitted all the three of them have only stated that the bus was driven at a high speed, which is not sufficient to record the conviction under section 304A, IPC.

6. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1968 (2) SCR 515 : (1968 Cri LJ 1013). In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held :

"The requirements of Section 304A, IPC are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death. There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused."

The same principle has been reiterated in the decision in Tukaram Sitaram Gore v. State, AIR 1971 Bombay 164.

7. Even though this is a revision and appreciation of the evidence in detail is not necessary, I have gone through the evidence to find out whether the findings of both the Courts below that the rash or negligent act of the revision petitioner as spoken to by the prosecution witnesse