Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 37 (RAJ)

Narendra v. State of Rajasthan

2003-01-09

D.N.JOSHI

body2003
Honble JOSHI, J.–The instant Criminal Revision No. 1016 is against the order of the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur passed on 26.10.2002 in Sessions Case No. 59/2000. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge had ordered to frame charges against the accused-persons under Section 285, 286, 304 of the Indian Penal Code. (2). The facts of the case are that the Station House Officer, Surajpole, Udaipur got a Parcha Bayan recorded on 20.11.1999 that Macsen Laboratories situated at Tekri, Udaipur has caught fire. Before he reached the said laboratory, the fire had already been extinguished. He found the body of a burnt person in a room of the said laboratory. The said labourer was working at Distillator machine. The deceased Naval Ram Gameti and Lalooram had put the Toluene oil in the machine and there were toluene fumes which are inflammable. The labourer went inside the room to make the switch off of the machine and died inside the room. As per site report, the laboureres were not provided with safety shoes or gloves and no fire extinguishers were found. Police registered a case under Sections 285, 304-A IPC and also registered another case for the same incident under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 36, 38, 43, 44 and 92 of the Factories Act. The learned trial Judge after hearing the prosecution and the accused passed the impugned order and frame charges against the accused- petitioners under Sections 269, 285, 286 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. (3). It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case for framing charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners as there is no evidence as to the intention of knowledge on the part of the accused- petitioners to cause homicide. (4). It was argued that lodging of the charge recites that the accused were rash and negligent and language of the challan is also of offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code but this same has been labelled under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was only of an accident. There is no evidence as to specific cause of fire. The case was only of an accident. There is no evidence as to specific cause of fire. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel that in absence of knowledge of leakage of gas and about the fact that, that would cause death or there was an intention to cause death, no charge under Section 304 can be framed against the accused petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner detailed procedure about operating of distillator. As per learned counsel, it was expected from the deceased to pour water distillator and ``will omission does not include knowledge as to culpable homicide. The learned trial court has found the case being of illegal omission on the part of the petitioners but, it is not based on the material on record. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Keshub Mahindra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1). (5). Learned counsel also supplied the certified copies of the relevant documents for perusal of the court. (6). Opposing the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned P.P. supported the order of learned trial court. It was argued by him that in view of the case State of Tamil Nadu vs. J. Jaylalita (2), it is not accepted from the trial court at this stage to examine the case and evidence of the prosecution meticulously which is to be done at the final stage of the trial. (7). In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj (3), the Apex Court referring to the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya (4), held that at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (8). In the case of State of M.P. vs. Mohan Lal Soni (5), referring to several previous decisions, it was held that the crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. Each case depends upon its particular facts and circumstances and sometime even a remote link between the activities of an accused and the facts of the case may justify a reasonable inference warranting a judicial finding that there is ground for presuming that an accused has committed the offence or at least to presume that the question of his being directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence is not be ruled out. (9). At the stage of framing charge trial Court is not required to marshal material on record but has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient material against accused, conclusion about inadequacy of evidence against accused -is premature assessment of evidence- not proper. Even strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing of charge. (10). As held in the case of Union of India vs. Prafull Kumar Samal (6), the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weight the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prime facie case against the accused has been made out. (11). (11). The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (12). The guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined at the time of conclusion of trial and not at the time of framing of charge. The Court therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidenciary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonable connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia (7). (13). Keeping in view the above judgments, this Court has gone through the order of the trial court and the documents supplied to the Court by the learned counsel for the accused and also gone through the FIR. It appears that there was no fire extinguisher and where explosive substances were collected and stored. The room in which distillation unit was installed was blocked by the unit in a manner in which only half of it can be used as per statements of Hukmi Chand, Vijay Lal, Dalpat Singh Fateh Lal, Deva, Ramchandra, Bheru Lal, Lalu Ram, Shatilal, Rattan Lal Garg (Junior Electrical Engineer) and Mithalal (Assistant Electrical Engineer). (Name of witness who is working as sub-inspector is not visible). It appears from the the post-mortem report and the statements that there was a prima facie material evidence against the accused-persons to frame charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. As per report of the concerned authorities and statements recorded during investigation, the case is not of rash and negligent act, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. (14). As per Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code, the word which refer to ``acts done extend also to illegal omissions. The word ``omission is used in the sense of intentional non-doing. Thus, according to this section `act includes intentional doing as well as intentional non-doing. (14). As per Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code, the word which refer to ``acts done extend also to illegal omissions. The word ``omission is used in the sense of intentional non-doing. Thus, according to this section `act includes intentional doing as well as intentional non-doing. The omission or neglect must no doubt be such as to have inactive effect conducing to the result, as a link, in the chain of facts from which an intention to bring about the result may be infered. The Code makes punishable omissions which have caused, which have been intended to cause, or which have been known to be likely to cause a certain evil effect in the same manner as it punished acts, provided they were illegal. And when the law imposes on a person a duty to act, his illegal omission to act renders him liable to punishment. (15). From the material produced, it appears that there was no fire extinguisher and the fact was made known to the petitioners several times in writing and also and orally by the concerned authorities. Despite that no action was taken on behalf of the accused-petitioners. (16). In this view of the matter, the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence that the accused persons were in charge of or in control of the said business but this is not placed in the evidence, but appears to be contrary about the relevant documents produced for the perusal of the court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court is satisfied that prima facie case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out against the accused-petitioners. The illegal omission on behalf of the accused-persons not providing safety measures and providing illegal wire etc. goes to lead that the act of the accused-petitioners amounting not only rashness and negligent but of an illegal omission. (17). Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order and the criminal revision petitioner is hereby rejected.