Nawal Kishore C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by Hanuman Prasad against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, upholding his conviction under section 304-A of the Penal Code.
(2.) THE facts relating to the case, out of which this revision arises, may be stated briefly. On the 13th of November, 1947, Mst. Pushpan, a girl of five years of age, was taken to the Ayurvedic Dispensary at Arthuna in Banswara State, which was in the charge of the accused, Hanuman Prasad Vaid, for treatment for stomach ache from which she was suffering at the time. THE relations, who accompanied her, asked the Vaid to give her an enema. Since the compounder of the Dispensary was 011 leave, the accused asked the relations accompanying the girl to call from the city one Magan Lal, who had previously served in the Dispensary. THE Vaid prescribed a glycerine enema, and directed Magan Lal to administer it. All this took place in the upper storey of the Dispensary. THE girl was taken down-stairs, and the enema was given by Magan Lal, but by mistake it was given in the vagina instead of the anus. THE result was that the uterus burst, and there was profused bleeding. THE Vaid, on being called, bandaged her, and sent her home, and later also attended her at her house, and gave some injections, but inspite of his best efforts, the girl died on the night of the 14th November, 1947. As a result of the first information report lodged by Mst. Manak, a relation of the girl, and the investigation conducted by the Police, Vaid Hanuman Prasad and Magan Lal were both challaned under section 304a of the Penal Code. THE trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced both the accused to six months' imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 51/- each. THE learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, on appeal, acquitted Magan Lal, but upheld the conviction of Hanuman Prasad, though the sentence was reduced to two months' simple imprisonment. While upholding the conviction of Hanuman Prasad, the learned Sessions Judge referred to A. I. R. 1945 Nagpur 242, and took the view that it was his duty to have the enema given in his presence, and accordingly the death was due to inattention on his part. In my opinion, the authority relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge has no application to the facts of this case. In order that a person may be convicted for causing the death of another by doing any rash or negligent act, it is necessary that death should have been the direct result of the act, and that act must have been the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another negligence. The rash or negligent act mentioned in the section means the act which is the immediate cause of the death, and not any act or omission which can, at the most, be said to be a remote cause of death. Relying on this principle it cannot be held, for a moment that the negligent act of Hanuman Prasad in deputing Magan Lal to administer the enema, if at all, was the direct cause of the death of Mst. Puspan. In the circumstances, the order convicting Hanuman Prasad is not at all justified. I accordingly accept this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and hereby acquit Hanuman Prasad. The accused, I understand, is on bail. Accordingly, in view of the acquittal, the bail bond is cancelled, and the sureties are hereby discharged. .;