V.K.GUPTA,C.J. - (1.) THIS is a very unfortunate case, whereby, the impugned order, the learned trial Court has very illegally taken cognizance of the case, inter alia, under Section 307, IPC, when, on a bare reading of the police report, charge -sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr PC, no offence whatsoever in terms of Section 307, IPC, was made out against the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Sri P. N. Lal, at the relevant time (on 24th July, 1997) was a Sub -ordinate Judge and was on his way to conduct surprise inspection of certain Examination Centres of B.A. (Hons.) under Ranchi University. He was travelling in an official vehicle, which was being driven by P.W. Sri Upendra Kumar Rai, who was also the informant of the case. The prosecution story is that because of the water -logging, the official vehicle of Sri P.N. Lal got stranded on the road and in the meantime, a bus bearing registration No. BHV 8884, driven by the accused -petitioner coming from the backside of the car hit the rear of the car, dashed against the same and sped fast. The prosecution allegation is that Sri P.N. Lal, in order to save himself, jumped out from inside the car. The charge -sheet under Sections 279, 427 and 307 IPC, was filed. The petitioner prayed for discharge, but the learned trial Judge, vide impugned order dated 21st March, 2001, rejected the prayer of the petitioner and held that a case was made out for framing charges under Section 307, IPC, as also under Sections 279 and 427, IPC. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record. I have also carefully gone through the statements of the PWs -Sri P.N. Lal and Upendra Kumar Rai recorded under Section 161, Cr PC, Both these witnesses have clearly stated that while their car was stranded owing to the water -logging on the road, the bus driven by the accused - petitioner came from behind, dashed against the car and sped fast. After saving so, both these persons also said that the intention of the accused was to kill Sri P.N. Lal. This is a very unfortunate situation because if in every motor accident the victims stand is that the intention of the driver of the offending vehicle was to kill the occupant of the other vehicle, fair play and justice would be first casualty. Making a bald assertion that the driver of the vehicle by his negligent and rash driving intended to kill a particular person is of no avail to the prosecution case, because any such assertion has to be supported and corroborated by enough material and other cogent evidence. Linking a simple accident with a charge of the intention to kill runs counter to the very basic principle of criminal jurisprudence. An accident is an accident. A mere accident cannot be called as an act with intent to kill a particular person. Section 307 IPC, can be attracted only in a case where there is a positive evidence that the accused really intended to kill. Mens rea being the most vital and essential ingredient of Section 307, the existence of mens rea would be the foundation for any charge under Section 307. The facts of the present case totally belie the prosecution story.
(3.) READING of the impugned order between the lines perhaps suggests that Sri P.N. Lal, being a Judicial Officer, was trying to take undue advantage of his position. A simple accident case, where even on own showing of the prosecution witnesses, no injury was caused to Sri P.N. Lal, was converted into a case under Section 307 IPC. This was least expected from a Judicial Officer. Not only that, the situation has been worse confounded by the Presiding Officer of the Court below, who by a blatant non -application of mind and a totally mechanical exercise of jurisdiction, decided to frame charge under Section 307 IPC, despite there being no material for the same. Was he (Presiding Officer of the Court below) trying to be extra helpful to his colleage ? If the answer is in the affirmative, this is indeed a very unfortunate situation.;