Tractor laid down one side and the death of Asharam occurred on account of said incident is not disputed. The applicant is assailing the judgment passed by both the Courts on the point that the prosecution has failed to prove that the applicant was driving rash and negligent. If any incident committed it was on account of bad road condition and the mud and the fact which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned counsel would further submit that as the conviction is solely based on the evidence of PW2Dauram, it goes to show that initially he never stated to the Police in his statement that the incident committed because of the fault of the applicant. He submits that at the instance of this witness and others the applicant had attempted to take the Tractor and on the spot the field was filled with water, mud and as one tyre reached near the mud and thereafter, the said tyre immersed in the water and the Tractor laid down one side and with this, the applicant also the ill fated Asharam came under the Tractor. The person initially attempted and succeeded to save the applicant and Asharam, but as the face of the deceased drowned, he failed to take breath and thereby he succumbed. He submits that as the applicant was not rash and negligent hence despite the incident he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC and thereby the revision may be allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court affirmed by the appellate Court may be set aside and the applicant be acquitted.
