Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5252 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
KAMLESH SINGH S/O PRAHLAD SINGH, AGED ABOUT
34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER BIJA DOGI, DIST.
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIYA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SACHIN JAISWAL, GA FOR STATE)
..................................................................................................................................
HEARD ON : 28.02.2024
DELIVERED ON: 04.03.2024
This revision petition was heard the court pronounce the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 397
R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2023
passed by learned 2nd ASJ, Indore in ST No.151/2023 whereby the learned trial
Court framed the charges against the petitioner under section 304, 279, 337 of
IPC.
2. As per the prosecution story, the allegations against the petitioner is
that on 09.06.2022 at about 01:00PM, the petitioner was driving his loading
vehicle bearing Registration No.MP09UC5900 on wrong side recklessly and
negligently at AB Road and dashed the bike of the complainant. Due to the said
accident, complainant Shashan Sharma got injured while Sakshi Sharma (pillion
rider) has expired. Hence, the offence was registered against the petitioner.
3. To controvert the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that however, the petitioner was admittedly going through the wrong
side, but he had no intention to cause death of the deceased. Since the incident
had happened all of a sudden, the petitioner could not be attributed for intention
of causing any bodily injury to the deceased. Hence, his limited prayer is that
the offence under Section 304 of IPC shall not be made out against the
petitioner and the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in
framing the charges against the petitioner under Section 304 of IPC in place of
Section 304-A of IPC. Hence, prays that the impugned order may be set aside
qua the offence under Section 304 of IPC and charges under Section 304-A
may kindly be framed by allowing the present petition.
4 . On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer,
however, he has not disputed the averments made by counsel for the petitioner.
It is submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against
the petitioner because the petitioner was driving the vehicle on wrong side
recklessly and negligently that too on very high speed. It is further submitted
that the petitioner has committed the offence and there was clear knowledge to
anyone that if the vehicle met with an accident, some one can be expired.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Prior to decide the question whether the charges under Section 304 of
IPC has been framed by the learned trial Court correctly or not, the provisions
of Section 304 of IPC is required to be considered first, which reads as under:-
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if
the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to
cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
304-A. Causing death by negligence.--
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent
act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both."
7. In order to establish the offence of culpable homicide not amounting
to murder punishable under section 304 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove
the knowledge or intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death.
8. On this Aspect, the pronouncement of Hon'ble apex Court rendered in
Jayaraj vs. State of Tamilnadu [AIR 1976 SC 1519] are worth to referrer
here wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court relying its another Full Bench decision
adumbrated as under:-
"33. As was pointed out by this Court in Anda vs. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148, "intent" and "knowledge" in the
ingredients of section 299 postulate the existence of positive mental
attitude and this mental condition is the special mensrea necessary for the
offence. the guilty intention in the first two conditions contemplates the
intended death of the person harmed or the intentional causing of an injury
likely to cause his death....."
9. Further, as the contention of counsel for the petitioner is only that the
offence would be made out only under Section 304-A in place of 304 of IPC,
this Court also considered the similar view in Hemraj Jan v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [2009 (5) MPHT 49], wherein the death of the deceased however
was due to electrocution, but the High Court has considered the act in para
no.16 as under:
"16. A rash or negligence act does not amount to culpable
homicide under Section 299 of the IPC unless it is proved that the
offender willfully and with the knowledge did the act which resulted
in the death of the victim. In the fact situation of the present case, in
my opinion, it cannot be held that either of the accused had
knowledge that by this act he was likely to cause the death of
deceased. Since the essential ingredient "knowledge" on the part of
the accused persons is not established, they cannot be punished for
the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.".
10. In the case at hand, certainly, the petitioner was driving the vehicle on
the wrong side recklessly and negligently and met with an accident due to which
the deceased has unfortunately lost her life, but rash or negligence act does not
amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC unless it is proved
that the offender willfully and with the knowledge coupled with mensrea did the
act which resulted in the death of the deceased. In the fact situation of the
present case, in my opinion, it cannot be held that either of the accused had
knowledge that by this act he was likely to cause the death of deceased. Since
the essential ingredient "knowledge" on the part of the petitioner is not
established, he cannot be charged for the offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
11. Hence, in view of the aforesaid elaborate discussions, provisions of
Section 304 and 304-A of IPC and the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Jayaraj (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of Hemraj Jain
(supra), the petitioner is liable to be charged under Section 304-A of IPC in
place of 304 of IPC. The impugned order of learned trial Court regarding
framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 304 of IPC is suffering
from impropriety and illegality, hence, the impugned judgment is set aside qua
framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 304 of IPC. Rest of the
charges stands affirmed.
12. Consequently, the CRR is partly allowed and disposed off.
13. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A, 279, 337 of IPC in consonance with the
provisions of Section 228 of Cr.P.C.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
