LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus CHITTARMAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN x _, l: CHITTARMAL JUNE 21. 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-s.304A-Protection under-When available-Held: For protection under s.304A there should be neither intention nor knowledge c to cause death-When any of these two elements is present, s.304A has no application. Penal Code, 1860-ss.304A and 302-Death due to electrocution on coming into contact with naked live electric wire-Electric wire allegedly fvced by Respondent with the intention to kill deceased-Plea of accused in D defence that he put the wire to prevent wild animals from going into his field-On facts, held: Defence version was probable-Prosecution not able to establish accusation under s.302-High Court right in convicting accused under s.304A. The father as well as brother of PWI3 died due to electrocution after E coming into contact with naked live electricity wire. The electric wire was allegedly fixed· by Respondent with the intention to kill the father of PWI3. Trial Court convicted Respondent under Section 302 IPC. High Court, however, altered conviction to Section 304A. F In appeal to this Court, it is contended that Respondent is liable to be convicted under Section 302 and not under Section 304A as held by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: I.I. s'.304A, IPC relates to death caused by negligence. The Section applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probabilities 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 H 1152 \. ' . I --1, STATEOFRAJASTHANv. CHITTARMAL (PASAYAT.J.1 1153 death of another person. Rashness and negligence are essential elements A under Section 304A. 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 persons' death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct B motivating force of the act, Section 304A IPC has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. (Para 9) 11155-F-H; 1156-A\ 1.2. In order to be encompassed by the protection under Section 304A there should be neither intention nor knowledge to cause death. When any of these two elements is found to be present, Section 304A has no application. C [Para 10) (1156-A-B] 2. The defence of Respondent was that to prevent wild animals from going into his field he had put the wire. The probability of the defence version is borne out from several factors; firstly two poles were placed to which wire D was fastened. In fact this aspect has been clearly taken note of by the Trial Court but it was concluded that merely because the wooden poles were there that did not establish the defence plea that the same was intended to keep away wild animals. High Court found that the prosecution itself accepted that two sticks were fixed. There was also seizure of the wooden sticks which aspeet was also accepted by the trial court. In view of the analysis made by E the High Court, the inevitable conclusion is that prosecution has not been able to establish the accusation under Section 302 IPC and the High Court rightly convicted the accused under Section 304A IPC. [Paras 11, 12 and 13) [1156-B-F) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 477 of f 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.1999 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 786of1998. Naveen Singh (for Aruneshwar Gupta) for the Appellant. K.K. Gupta for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment G H 1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120071 7 S.C.R. A rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Jaipur Bench altering eonviction of the respondent from one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short the 'IPC') to Section 304A IPC. Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation was awarded. B 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: I Shri Girdhari (PW-13) submitt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.