MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R. registered in Boudh P.S. Case No. 65 dated 18.5.2008 which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 153 of 2008 pending in the file of the S.D.J.M., Boudh. The case has been registered for the offence Under Sections 287 and 304A of I.P.C. The F.I.R. has been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the application.

(2.) THE prosecution case as revealed from the F.I.R. is that the Petitioner is the owner of a rice mill located in village Biswanathpur. The deceased Apurna Sethy was working in the rice mill of the Petitioner. While the deceased was working in the rice mill of the Petitioner on 22.3.2004, her saree came in contact with the belt of the rice mill for which the deceased was dragged with the belt and subsequently died on the spot. It appears that an U.D. case was registered which was enquired into and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to strangulation on neck either homicidal or accidental strangulation by means of saree or a cloth. The informant, who was A.S.I. of Police while enquiring into the case, examined two witnesses. The witnesses who were examined by the informant clearly stated as would appear from the F.I.R. that the deceased Apurna Sethy while working in the rice mill of the Petitioner came in contact with conveyor belt of the rice mill as a result, the saree was dragged along with the belt and she died at the spot due to strangulation on her neck. On the basis of such result in the U.D. case, the A.S.I. of Police lodged the F.I.R. in question under Annexure 1 alleging that the occurrence took place due to coming in contact with the machinery of the rice mill of the Petitioner for which the Petitioner was liable for the offence Under Sections 287/304A I.P.C.

(3.) THE rival contentions require careful examination. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was employed in the rice mill of the Petitioner and her saree came in contact with the conveyor belt of the rice mill in course of employment on 22.3.2004. Since the saree of the deceased was dragged with the belt, the deceased died at the spot. There is no dispute to these factual aspects. Whether these facts would constitute the offence within the meaning of Section 304A of I.P.C, for which it is necessary to notice the provisions of Section 304A I.P.C. Section 304A I.P.C. is as follows: