SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 1/9/1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him for 1 year S.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which to further undergo one month's S.I.; for the offence under Section 288 IPC and sentenced for a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to further undergo one month's S.I. and for the offence under Section 337 in the alternative 338 IPC and sentenced for a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of which to further under one month's S.I. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was partly allowed by the Special Judge (Communal Riots/ Man Singh Murder Case), Jaipur on 11.02.1999 and the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 288 IPC. However, the learned Appellate Court had maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner for other offences.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 18.08.1982, the SHO of the concerning police station had gone to Sindhi Camp, Jaipur for some official work, where Sub-Inspector Puran Pratap Nirmal was also present and they heard a noise, as the construction work at Sargam Hotel fell down. Thereafter, the said police personnel alongwith one Rajkumar reached the place of incident, where the employees of the Roadways were removing the construction material so as to rescue the injured persons. The injured were then taken to SMS Hospital in a Roadways bus by the Sub-Inspector Rajkumar. As a result of the collapse of the roof, several persons were injured out of which seven died. On enquiry, it was found that the hotel was being constructed by its owner Prithivi Raj Choudhary through the contractor Shankar Lal, the petitioner. At the relevant time, work of laying the RCC roof was being done on the second floor and it was also found that after shuttering of the roof and the work of laying down the steel rodes had been completed by the contractor, there had been heavy rains for last two days. Thereafter when the work of putting the concrete was going that the incident had taken place. Thereafter, report (228/82) was registered for the offences under Sections 288, 336, 337 and 304-A IPC.

(3.) THE said provision requires that the death should have been by a rash and negligent act of the accused. In other words, the death must be the direct or proximate result of rash and negligent act. THE said provision of law had been considered in the leading case of Emperor vs. Omkar Rampratap, 4 Bombay LR 679. While considering Section 304-A IPC, Sir Lawrence Jenkins had observed as under:- To impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. THEreafter, the said view had been followed in a number of cases by different High Courts. In the case of Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also affirmed the aforesaid view that death must be the direct or proximate result of a rash or negligent act of the accused.