MOHAMMAD MOIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision case, the conviction of the appellant under section 304-A I.P.C. by the 6th Metropolitan Sessions Judge as confirmed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad is being challenged.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that: At about 1 P.M on 26-7-1982 the accused-appellant drove a lorry AAT 7172 rashly and negligently at a high speed, overtook a bullock cart, took the said lorry to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the deceased, a young boy of about thirteen years by name Sheriff, who was then proceeding on a cycle in the opposite direction towards Amberpet near the slaughter house, as a result of which the boy fell down from the cycle and the lorry run over him. resulting in his instantieous death. The accused proceeded to a short distance then stopped the lorry and fled away from the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by P,W. 1 and P.W 2. The trial court, relying upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were the eye-witnesses, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304-A.I.P.C., convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal preferred by the appellant before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the learned Sessions Juige, on a detailed reappraisal of the evidence on record, concurred with the finding of the trial court and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3.) Sri Sankararao Bhilolikar, learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is bald and omnibus and does not establish that the appellant was guilty of rash or negligent act as required under Section 304-A. IPC. The requirements of Section 304-A are that She death of any person must have been caused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. There must be direct nexus between the person and the rash or negligent act of the accused. To impose criminal liability under the section it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused.