LexNARESH GIRI versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) NARESHGIRI A v. STATEOFM.P. NOVEMBER 12, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 304 A, 279 and 337-Train hitting the bus carrying C passengers when it was near the railway crossing-Injuries to passengers and death of two-Driver charged u/s 302 and alternatively u/ss. 3 04, 3 2 5 and 3 23-Drivers 'case that railway crossing unmanned and engine hitting rear portion of the bus, thus, s. 302 not applicable- Held: Charges can be altered at any stage subsequent to framing of D charges-On facts, s. 302 not applicable-Hence, charges altered to s. 304 A with ss. 279 and 337. s. 304 A-Applicability of-Determination-Held: s. 304 A applies to rash and negligent acts which directly causes death-There should be neither intention nor knowledge to cause death-Negligence E and rashness are essential attributes of s. 304 A. Words and Phrases: 'Negligence', 'reckless '-Meaning of According to the prosecution case, appellant was driving a bus carrying several passengers. When the bus was at railway crossing, F it was hit by a train and was badly damaged. As a result several passengers got injured and two persons died. FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried out. Charges were framed under s. 302 and alternatively under s. 304, 325 and 323 IPC against the appellant. Appellant filed revision petition questioning the charges G framed. High Court dismissed the revision petition. Hence, the present appeal. Appellant contended that the accident took place near the un- 987 H 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A manned railway crossing; that the materials on record show that the engine of the train hit rear portion of the bus; that ultimately it may have been an error of judgment on the part of the appellant; and that the fact that the engine hit rear portion shows that there was no appa:-ent negligence on the part of the appellant, therefore, section B 302 has no application. c Respondent-State contended that the fact that the passengers were asking the appellant not to cross the railway line shows that there was negligence and appellant was acting in a rash and negligent manner without proper care and caution. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done, in all probabilities, will cause death. This provision is directed at D offences outside the range of sections 299 and 300 IPC. Section 304-A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under section 304-A. It carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent E act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under Section 300. If a person willfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent F 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 has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent G driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death ofany person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence, a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and H rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be ~ \ ~- ' \_ .... ,J'. NARESHGIRiv. STATE 989 attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because A of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304-A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such rashness or negligence which B may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor. [Paras 6 and 7] [991-C, D, E, F, G; 992-A, BJ 1.2. 'R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.