VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 12. 9. 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2001 by which he maintained conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 11. 12. 1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 49/98, but reduced the sentence of the accused petitioner for the said offence in the following manner :- Sentence awarded by learned ACJm Sentence reduced by the learned Sessions Judge Two years SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for six months. One year SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition, short, are as follows :- On 20. 6. 1990 at about 10. 45 AM, PW5 Bhagha lodged an oral report Ex. P/9 with the Police Station Rajnagar stating inter-alia that on that day at about 10. 15 AM, he alongwith PW2 Kalu, PW-4 Nathu Singh and some other persons were taking tea in a hotel near Maxon Marbles. It was further stated in the report that Geeta (hereinafter referred to as deceased), daughter of PW3 Jawana, aged about five years was, standing near the main road on one side and at that time, a Truck bearing No. DEG/5856 came from the side of Rajnagar and that Truck was being driven by the accused petitioner rashly and negligently and the said Truck dashed against deceased and crossed over her left leg, as a result of which, her left leg was broken totally and then, she was taken to the hospital where she died on 22. 6. 1990. On this report, police registered the case initially for the offence under sections 279, 338 IPC and later on, Section 304-A IPC was added. During investigation, the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the post mortem report is Ex. P/7 and the same has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner during trial. THE accused petitioner was arrested through arrest memo Ex. P/4. After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence under sections 279, 304-A IPC against the accused petitioner in the Court of Magistrate, Rajsamand. On 27. 6. 1991, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajsamand framed the charges for the offence under sections 279 and 304-A IPC against the accused petitioner. THE charges were read over and explained to the accused petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 5 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. THEreafter, statement of the accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. No evidence was produced in defence by the accused petitioner. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand through his judgment and order 11. 12. 1998 convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused petitioner for the said offence and he has placed reliance on the statement of PW-2 Kalu. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dt. 11. 12. 1998 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, the accused petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. THE learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand through his judgment and order dt. 12. 9. 2001 decided that appeal and confirmed the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 11. 12. 98, but reduced the sentence for the said offence in the manner as indicated above. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 12. 9. 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, the accused petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this Court.

(3.) WHAT Section 304-A IPC requires is causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act and that means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act. I may in this connection refer to Emperor vs. Omkar Rampratap (1), in which Sir Lawrence Jenkins interpreted Section 304-A IPC as under :- " To impose criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC, it is necessary that death should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of author's negligence. It must be the causa causons: it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. "