CRLA No. 20 of 2005 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. R.p. Nautiyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, AGA for the State. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant confined to his argument only on the one point that conviction ………. Beeen under Section 279 read with Section 304 IPC. He further argued that this is not a case of Section 302 Part-II and Section 308 IPC. Learned AGA very fairly stated that this is a case of the accident and in fact Sections 308 and 304 Part-II should not have been attracted rather conviction should have been under Section 279 IPC. He further argued since Part-II has already served sentence then no useful purpose shall be served. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the view that it seems to be a case of rash and negligence driving. Hence, conviction ought to have been under Section 279 read with Section 304 A, IPC. Keeping in mind fairly statement made by learned AGA, conviction is converted under Section 279 read with Section 304-A, IPC. Hence, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant is modified from Section 304 Part-II and Section 304 IPC to Section 279 read with Section 304 IPC. Since appellant has already served sentence by the trial Court, no modification regarding the sentence is required. Appeal is allowed accordingly. (Alok Singh, J.) 23-11-2009 Amit