- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. Sri Samir Jain, holding brief of Sri I. M. Khan is present for the revisionist and A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) THE prosecution case against the revisionist is that he was driver of a Pas senger Train and deliberately defied the red signal and dashed against a Goods Train with the result that a number of persons died and several others received injuries. The Court below has framed char ges against the revisionist under Sections 304 and 304-A, I. P. C. It is argued that no case under Section 304, I. P. C. is made out and at best a case under Section 304-A, I. P. C. is made out. Learned Counsel has cited State of Gujarat v. Haidarali Kalub-hai, 1976 Cr LJ 732 in support of this contention. In the cited case the accused were charged under Section 304, Part II but the conviction was aftered. on appeal to Sec tion 304-A. In Paragraph 4 of the judg ment it has been observed that if a person wilfully drives a motor vehicle into 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.
(3.) IN the instant case the witnesses have stated that the revisionist deliberately flouted the red signal and dashed the Passenger Train against the Goods Train. Therefore, the revisionist has rightly been charged under Section 304, I. P. C. The next contention is that a per son cannot be charged under Section 304, I. P. C. as well as 304-A, I. P. C. because the ingredient of the two offences are totally different.;