SATENDRA Vs. RAMJILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-3-2003 passed by Additional District and Sessions judge No. 2, Kishangarhbas, district alwar whereby the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were discharged from the offences under ss. 304, 201 IPC, but a charge under section 304-A, IPC was ordered to be framed against the respondent No. 1 Ramji Lal and the case was transferred to trial to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, kishangarhbas, Alwar under S. 228, Cr. P. C.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner lodged a written report at the police station Mundawar district alwar on 29-8-2002 that his father sultan Singh went to the well on 28-2-2002 and when he was sleeping there he died out of electric shock and that the respondents nos. 1 and 2 threw the body of Sultan Singh near the road. According to the post-mortem report of the deceased Sultan Singh the cause of death was sudden cardio respiratory arrest due to electric current which was antemortem in nature. During investigation it was found that the respondent No. 1 ramjilal had taken a temporary clandestine connection in his house by laying a naked wire with the main electric wire and that wire loosened and when the deceased Sultan singh came in contact with it he died out of electric shock. Thereafter the respondents nos. 1 and 2 removed the body of the deceased from the place of occurrence and threw it near the road.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that though the respondent Ramjilal had no intention to cause the death of the deceased Sultan Singh but his act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death and therefore a charge under Section 304, IPC should have been framed against the respondent No. 1 Ramjilal. He further contends that there is evidence on record to show that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 removed the body of the deceased from the place of occurrence and threw it near the road and, therefore, a charge under Section 201, IPC should also have been framed against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.