JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan whereby the appellant/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted under Section 304-A IPC and has been sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that Dharam Singh (since deceased), his wife Lata Katoch (PW-1) along with their children Gaurav and Sudhir Kumar (PW-7) were residing with their other family members, namely, Lachhi Ram (the accused), his wife Shankru Devi (PW-2) and Gita Ram (PW-4), brother of the deceased in village Nav-Chabla. Karma Devi (PW-3) sister of the deceased was also residing with them after the death of her husband. On 4.3.1996 when the deceased returned home at about 9 p.m. PW-1 was busy with her children and other members had, slept. The deceased informed PW-1 that he would take his meals and would bring a "Lota" (a small utensil used for keeping and serving water) of water from the kitchen. After some time PW-1 heard a laud blast from the kitchen. She ran towards the kitchen and on reaching there found that the deceased had been injured by a gun shot from a breach loading gun which was kept loaded in the kitchen for drying. Immediately thereafter the accused. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 also arrived at the scene. The deceased was removed to Jabli road where Kulwant Singh (a co-accused before the trial Court who has been acquitted by the impugned judgment) and Rattan Singh (PW-10) met them. A Jeep was arranged from Cosmo Factory and the deceased was then removed to ESI Hospital, Parwanoo where he died. In the meanwhile, Kulwant Singh had telephonically informed the police at Police Station, Parwanoo that the deceased had sustained injury by a breach loading gun and has died in ESI Hospital Parwanoo. On receipt of this information, Inspector Sri Ram (PW-20) S.H.O. Police Station, Parwanoo along with some other police officials went to the. ESI Hospital Parwanoo and recorded statement of PW-1 Ext. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said statement formal F.I.R. Ext. PW-17/A under Section 304-A IPC was recorded at Police Station, Parwanoo and the investigation of the case by PW-20 followed. ESI Hospital Parwanoo and recorded statement of PW-1 Ext. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said statement formal F.I.R. Ext. PW-17/A under Section 304-A IPC was recorded at Police Station, Parwanoo and the investigation of the case by PW-20 followed. On visiting the spot PW-20 found a broken gun in the kitchen room of the house of the family of the deceased. While inspecting the bed room of the deceased he noticed blood on the quilt and Khandolu lying on the cot. Some broken pieces of the butt of the gun were also found lying near the door of the bed room of the deceased. This led PW-20 to believe that the incident resulting in the death of the deceased occurred in the bed room of the deceased and not in the kitchen. He prepared the site plan Ext. PW-20/A and took into possession blood stained Khandolu and cover of the quilt vide memo Ext. PW-6/D. 12 broken pieces of the butt of the gun were also taken in possession vide memo Ext. PW-6/E. The licence of the gun, the gun, one 12 bore empty cartridge, two live cartridges were also taken in possession respectively vide memos Ext.PW-4/E, PW-6/A, PW-6/E and PW-6/C. Photographs of the gun were recovered were taken, negatives whereof are Exts. PW-13/D.PW-13/E, PW-13/F, PW-12/C and PW-12/D and the photographs are Exts. PW-13/A, PW-13/B, PW-13/C, PW-12/A and PW-12/B. Postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in ESI Hospital, Parwanoo by Dr. Anil Kumar PW-Ex who prepared the Postmortem report Ext.PW-9/B. According to the medical opinion given by PW-9, the cause of death of the deceased was gun shot injury leading to massive hemorrhage, shock and death. PW-9 also took in possession the wearing apparels and other pieces of clothes found on the body of the deceased at the time of conducting the Post-mortem examination. The said gun, live cartridges, empty cartridges, pieces of the butt of the gun, the wearing apparels of the deceased etc. were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh for examination and comparison. The report received from the said Laboratory is Ext.PW-20/D according to which the empty cartridge was found to have been fired through the gun in question and could not be fired through any other firearm. were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh for examination and comparison. The report received from the said Laboratory is Ext.PW-20/D according to which the empty cartridge was found to have been fired through the gun in question and could not be fired through any other firearm. The holes in the wearing apparels of the deceased, namely, shirt and sweater were found to have been caused by fire. The blood stained Khandolu and cover of the quilt along with blood sample of the deceased were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for test and vide report Ext. PW-20/E from the State Laboratory it was found that the blood found on the cover of the quilt, Khandolu and the blood sample of the deceased was of Group-A. During investigation, it was found that said Kulwant Singh prompted PW-1 to give wrong information to the police vide her statement Ext.PW-1/A whereas on 4.3.1996 accused went to the bed room of the deceased and made in quiries from him about the gun which was concealed by the deceased. The accused claimed that the deceased had no authority to conceal the gun as the accused was the holder of the licence of the gun. PW-1 then handed over the gun to the accused that loaded the same and fired at the deceased who was at that time on the cot. The gun shot hit in his stomach. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and two children of the deceased were also present at the time of the occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence PW-4 also came in the room and noticed the gun injury on the person of the deceased. It is further case of the prosecution that when the deceased was being taken to the Hospital said Kulwant asked Chattar Singh, Bheem Bahadur, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 to state before the police that the deceased received gun shot injury due to fall of the gun in the kitchen while he was taking his meals. The Investigating Agency thus came to the conclusion that the deceased was murdered by the accused and said Kulwant Singh prompted PW-1 to make false statement with a view to save the accused. Therefore, the case was converted to be one under Section 302,201 and 177 IPC and a charge-sheet was accordingly submitted against the accused and said Kulwant Singh. 3. Therefore, the case was converted to be one under Section 302,201 and 177 IPC and a charge-sheet was accordingly submitted against the accused and said Kulwant Singh. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302/201 IPC against the accused and a charge under Section 201/177 IPC against Kulwant Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the charges against the accused and said Kulwant, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused and Kulwant Singh were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. whereby accused claimed to be innocent on the ground that the gun went of when it was being handed over to him by the deceased reluctantly and that he did not fire at his son with whom he had no enmity and there was no occasion for him to fire at his son. Kulwant Singh also claimed to be innocent. No defence evidence was led. 5. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the charge against Kulwant Singh was not proved, therefore, he was acquitted. It was also held that charge under Section 302, 201 IPC against the accused was also not proved but the accused was held guilty of the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and was accordingly convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the accused. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Advocate .General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment, therefore, the findings that Kulwant Singh is not guilty of the commission of offences under Sections 201 and 177 I.P.C. and the accused is not guilty of the commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. have become final. It is thus implicit in the acquittal of Kulwant Singh that PW-1 had not made the statement Ex. PW-1/A on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW-17/A was recorded, incorrectly at the instance of Kulwant Singh. It is further clear from the unchallenged acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. that such intention or knowledge as required to constitute an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. on the part of the accused was absent. PW-17/A was recorded, incorrectly at the instance of Kulwant Singh. It is further clear from the unchallenged acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. that such intention or knowledge as required to constitute an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. on the part of the accused was absent. It is, however, not in dispute that the deceased died of the gun shot injury. Therefore, the only question requiring determination in this case is whether the accused had by any rash or negligent act caused the death of the deceased, thereby rendering himself liable for conviction and punishment under Section 302-A I.P.C. 8. Section 304-A I.P.C. is not meant to punish a person in a case where the killing of a human being by him does not fall within the scope of Section 302 or 304 or any other penal provision but it is limited to such cases where the death has been caused by rash or negligent act and falls short of culpable homicide. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injuries and without the knowledge that injury will probably be caused. To incur criminal liability the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by the accused to avoid causing of injury to the public or an individual. In the absence of such criminal rashness or criminal negligence, accused cannot be convicted under Section 304-A I.P.C. 9. In the case in hand insofar as the FIR Ex.PW-17/A is concerned, it did hot disclose the commission of an offence under Section 304-A or any other offence. But a bare perusal of the FIR makes it out a case of accident. The contents of the FIR Ex. PW-17/A, however, cannot be said to be wholly correct in view of the evidence on record. However even such evidence does not prove any rash or negligent act on the part of the accused to warrant his conviction under Section 304-A I.P.C. 10. The contents of the FIR Ex. PW-17/A, however, cannot be said to be wholly correct in view of the evidence on record. However even such evidence does not prove any rash or negligent act on the part of the accused to warrant his conviction under Section 304-A I.P.C. 10. In view of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 it is indisputably established that the deceased sustained the injuries caused by a gun shot in his bed room where even PW-3 and PW-4 saw the deceased lying injured. There is nothing in the statement of PW-1 to reveal as to under what circumstances the deceased received the gun shot injury because as per her version after the initial entry of the accused and PW-2 in the bed room, she and her children remained in the bed having covered their bodies including heads with quilt. PW-1 heard the conversation which took place in the room but did not see any occurrence till she heard the gun shot and uncovered her face. Similarly, version of PW-7 (a child witness sleeping in the room) is that he was sleeping and woke up after hearing the gun shot. Thus there is nothing even in his statement to find out as to under what circumstances the gun went off. PW-3 and PW-4 came on the spot after hearing the gun shot and there is noting even in their statements to suggest as to under what circumstances the gun went off. As per the version of PW-2 the accused who had consumed liquor had some altercation with his nephew Rattan Singh near the Jhugi of Dhan Bahadur (PW-5). The deceased and PW-4to avoid aggravation of altercation between Rattan Singh and the accused went to the place where such altercation took place and brought the accused to his house. The accused thereafter demanded his, gun from PW-2 and she informed him that the gun had bee concealed by the deceased. The accused then inquired as to why gun had been kept by the deceased whom be (the accused) was the licence holder. Then to take back the gun they went to the bed room of the deceased and PW-2 asked the deceased to return the gun to the deceased. The accused then inquired as to why gun had been kept by the deceased whom be (the accused) was the licence holder. Then to take back the gun they went to the bed room of the deceased and PW-2 asked the deceased to return the gun to the deceased. The version of PW-2 father is that the accused tried to take the gun from the deceased but he tried to resist the taking of the gun by the accused and in the process the gun went off. Be it stated that only PW2 has stated about the circumstances under which the gun went off. There is no dispute that the accused was the license holder of the gun and legally no person other than the accused could keep the gun in his possession. It clearly emerges from the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that the gun was kept concealed on the date of occurrence under the beddings of the deceased. There is no evidence that the accused intended to use the gun for any unlawful purpose. Thus in view of these facts and the statement of PW-2 no rash or negligent act can be attributed to the accused. 11. It is clearly admitted by the material witnesses that relations between the father (the accused) and the son (the deceased) had always bee good. Thus the accused cannot be expected to have acted at the relevant time in a manner which could cause injury to his son. It is evident from the statement of PW-2 that the gun went off when the accused wanted to take it and the deceased resisted him and pulled the gun to his side. 12. In view of the above discussion the accused cannot be held to have acted in a rash or negligent manner and it was accidently that the gun went off and caused fatal injury to the deceased. Therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 13. As a result this appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 304-A. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Fine if recovered be refunded to the accused -