Girish Singh vs State Of Uttaranchal

information report (Ext. A-3) with the police station.

Investigation was undertaken and on completion of

investigation charge sheet was filed. As accused abjured guilt,

trial was held.

4. Placing reliance on the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e.

Israil Mian (PW3) and Mazhar Ansari (PW4) (brother and son

of the deceased respectively), the Trial Court found the

accused-appellant guilty and convicted him and imposed

sentence as noted above.

5. In appeal before the High Court the stand of the accused

was that this in not a case where Section 304 Part II IPC is 3 applicable. On the other hand, this is a case where even if the

prosecution version is accepted in toto, it would, at the most,

an offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. Another plea

related to acceptance of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 on the

ground that they are related to the deceased. Both the pleas

were rejected and appeal was dismissed. The stand taken

before the High Court was reiterated by the learned counsel

for the appellant.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State

supported the judgments of the Trial Court as upheld by the

High Court.

7. The plea relating to relative's evidence has no substance,

when such evidence has credence it can be acted upon.

8. Coming to the plea of the applicability of Section 304-A,

it is to be noted that the said provision relates to death caused

by negligence. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is

4 no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act

done in all probability will cause death. The provision relates

to offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. It

applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are

directly the cause of death of another person. Rashness and

negligence are essential elements under Section 304-A. It

carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a

rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable

homicide under Section 299 or murder in Section 300 IPC.

Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that

doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable

homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct

motivating force of the act, Section 304-A IPC has to make

room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable

homicide.

9. In order to be encompassed by the protection under

Section 304-A there should be neither intention nor

5 knowledge to cause death. When any of these two elements is

found to be present, Section 304-A has no application.

10. When the background facts are considered in the light of

the legal principles set out above, the inevitable conclusion is

that stand of the appellant is clearly unsustainable.

11. The appeal is without merit, deserves dismissal, which

we direct.

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

..........................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, May 9, 2008

6