S. ACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner stands convicted under sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and for the latter mentioned offence he has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for five months, and no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under section 279, Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was the driver of the tractor bearing registration No. M. R. P. 4581 belonging to Dandakaranya Project. The deceased was the Sectional Officer in that Project, and the petitioner was working under him at the relevant time. On the date of occurrence the Sectional Officer (the deceased) was returning from M. V. N. 60 to M. V. No. 90 in the evening in the aforesaid tractor driven by the petitioner. On the way, at about 9-30 p. m. one of the wheels of the tractor went over a gravel heap on the road as a result of which the Sectional Officer, who was sitting on the tractor was thrown out and the rear wheel of the tractor ran over his head. The deceased sustained injuries on his head and died soon thereafter. On the allegation of rash and negligent driving the petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and he has been convicted of the same. In defence the petitioner asserted that at the relevant time he was driving the vehicle under the orders of the deceased who was his immediate boss, and the accident took place for no fault of his though he was driving the tractor slowly and in a very careful manner.

( 3 ) FROM the impugned judgment it appears that the petitioner has been convicted of the aforesaid offence mostly on the ground that he was driving the vehicle at night without headlights, its foot brakes were not wholly efficient; there was no hand brake in it, there was excessive play in its streeing system and the deceased was sitting on it in a precarious position in the middle between the driver and the bonnet though there was no seat provided at that place. The Court below finds that driving the said tractor in that condition after nightfall was itself a negligent act and though the petitioner drove that vehicle under the direction of the deceased he could not be absolved of the guilt, as he would be presumed to know the consequences of his driving the vehicle at night in the aforesaid circumstances.

( 4 ) TO constitute either of the offences under section 279 or 304-A, Indian Penal Code, proof of criminal rashness or criminal negligence is essential. In order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation and showed such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime. Bharosi v. State. In order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence it must be found that the rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. State v. Loknath. There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash and negligent act of the deceased There must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death. Suleman Rahiman v. State of Maharashtra. Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, has observed that Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For liability under the criminal law, a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved. Probably, of all the epithets that can be applied, reckless, most nearly covers the case.

( 5 ) IN this connection the decisions reported in 1969 C. L. T. 723, 1968 C. L. T. 5006, 1971 (2) C. W. R. 585, A. I. R. 1944 Sind 1248 and A. I. R. 1926 Calcutta 300 may also be seen.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, accident merely due to error of judgment of the driver or without anything to show that he was conscious of the risk that evil consequ