TARSEEN CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was given notice of the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code by Mr. A.S. Dateer, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, and the grievance of the petitioner is that on the facts of the case the learned Magistrate has patently erred in issuing the notice as on the bare reading of the facts of the case it cannot be said that any rash or negligent act of the petitioner was responsible for the death of the deceased; and that there is no direct nexus between the death of the deceased and the rash or negligent act attributed to the accused.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point at issue, facts of the case may briefly be reproduced. On 8th February 1980 one Shri Ranjit Singh who was at the relevant time working as Head Master Primari School, Barola, Panchwati, Delhi lodged a report at police station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi staling therein that after the morning prayers were held in the school which finished at 9 A.M. and the-children were returning to their classes, one Kumari Sudha, daughter of Mohan Lal, a student of class Iii of school also was returning to the class room and while she was returning a 'balli' 6 ft. long and 8 inches in width fell down from the nearby building under construction by Tarseen Chand contractor (petitioner). The 'balli' hit Sudha on her head which resulted in the fracture of skull and she became unconscious. She was removed to the hospital in the petitioner's car but she died on the same day. It was further stated that the death was caused due to rashness and negligence of the labourers employed by the contractor.

(3.) CONTENTION of Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for,the petitioner is that the death of Kumari Sudha was caused by the rash or negligent act of the labourers and it was wrong to hold him responsible for the same and to issue notice against him. His contention is that there is no proof that rash and negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of death and there is no direct nexus between the death of the deceased and rash or negligent act attributed to the petitioner. In this regard reliance was placed by Mr. Mathur on Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra , and also on Suleman Rehiman Mulani and another v. State of Maharashtra, 1967 Crl. Appeals Reporter page 141. The ratio of both these cases is as follows :