Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1109 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Amrit Lal Jain

2005-10-21

K.S.GAREWAL

body2005
Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Amrit Lal Jain and Sham Lal were tried by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahar for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and vide judgment dated April 6, 1989 they were both convicted. Criminal Appeal No. 412-DBA of 1989 has been filed by the State against their acquittal. Criminal Revision 746 of 1989 has been filed by the Rewal Singh also challenging the acquittal. Both the above mentioned cases shall be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The tragedy which led to the death of 2 school teachers and 16 school children by the falling of Sham Lals house had occurred in the morning of February 16, 1987. Amrit Lal Jain ran the Tagore Model School, Nawanshahar and was its Principal. The school adjoined the building of this neighbour Sham Lal. At the time of the occurrence the 2 teachers and their students were sitting out doors in the compound of the school near Sham Lals building. A Magisterial inquiry had been conducted by Executive Magistrate, Jalandhar who concluded that the accident had taken palace due to the negligence on the part of the school for not maintaining its building. Earth had been dug from the school compound, which had led to the weakening of the foundation of the adjoined building of Sham Lal. Even Sham Lal had not maintained his building properly which was in a dangerous condition. The accident was caused due to the negligence of both Amrit Lal Jain and Sham Lal. 3. Case was registered under Section 304-A I.P.C. on the basis of the Magisterial report. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and collected the post-mortem reports. He also collected the medical evidence relating to the injured children. After completion of the investigation, Amrit Lal Jain and Sham Lal were sent up for trial. Charge was framed under Section 304-A I.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined the Medical Officers who had attended on the injured persons, parents of the injured and deceased children and some of the witnesses who had seen the building or the site of the building before the collapse of the wall and the resultant tragedy. 5. The accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the various incriminating circumstances were put to them. 5. The accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the various incriminating circumstances were put to them. The plea taken up by the accursed in their statements was the they were innocent and the witnesses had deposed falsely. When called upon to enter defence, the accursed examined experts regarding the condition of the building. Sham Lal examined Clerks of S.D.M. Office and Municipal Corporation, Nawanshahar in respect of the complaints filed by Smt. Prabha Singh against Amrit Lal Jain. Evidence of police officer, who conducted the investigation in this case A.S.I Chajju Ram was also led. 6. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahar accepted the fact that the 2 teachers and 16 children had died due to falling debris of Sham Lals building which fell on the school compound. However, it was further held that Amrit Lal Jain had not dug the earth or removed it from the land adjoining the wall during the period immediately preceding the accident but had done so about a year earlier. As regards the building itself, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was in bad condition and its owner Sham Lal had not effected repairs. However, the ultimate conclusion was that the deaths had not taken place as a result of the direct rash or negligent acts of the accused. The prosecution case was that Sham Lals building was in damaged condition and earth had been removed by Amrit Lal Jain about a year earlier and this had resulted in the accident. The learned Magistrate had relied on the requirement of law that it must be proved that negligence of the accused was causa causans (immediate cause), it was not enough that it might have been the cause sine qua non (necessary cause). Both the accused were acquitted. 7. The school Principal has accused the building owner of negligence for failing to look after his building properly. The building owner has accused the school Principal of negligence in digging the earth to close to his building and weakening its foundation. The evidence led by the prosecution has conclusively established both the factors but the question really is whether the acts of either school Principal or the building owner were rash or negligent in nature that had led to loss of 18 lives. 8. The evidence led by the prosecution has conclusively established both the factors but the question really is whether the acts of either school Principal or the building owner were rash or negligent in nature that had led to loss of 18 lives. 8. The learned Magistrate had very carefully examined the evidence and correctly applied the rule of law that still consistently holds the field. In Ambalal D. Bhatt v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1150 the accused had been charged with acting rashly and negligently in manufacturing a solution of glucose in normal saline containing more than the permitted quantity of lead nitrate as a result of which 13 person died. The accused were acquitted. It was held as below :- "It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death." 9. The principle laid down in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, (1902)4 Bom LR 679 that causing of death must be the causa causans and it was not enough that it may have been cause sine qua non was followed. Similarly, in Kurban Hussein Mohem-medali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1616 this principle was accepted. 10. Therefore, even if it is taken as established that both the school principal and the building owner, Amrit Lal Jain and Sham Lal, respectively, were careless in digging the earth and weakening the foundation and failing to maintain the buildings, these acts can at best be described as causa sine qua non and were certainly not causa causans. For holding the accused person guilty under Section 304A I.P.C., the act causing death must be causa causans. 11. In the present case, causa causans or the immediate cause of the occurrence was not the negligence or any rash act of the accused respondents. There was no evidence to show that they had done something on the day of the occurrence, which had led to the wall collapsing and the resulting deaths. 11. In the present case, causa causans or the immediate cause of the occurrence was not the negligence or any rash act of the accused respondents. There was no evidence to show that they had done something on the day of the occurrence, which had led to the wall collapsing and the resulting deaths. The digging of earth by Amrit Lal Jain a year before the occurrence and the failure to maintain the building by Sham Lal were necessary causes which may have helped or made possible the collapse of the building but they were not by themselves the immediate cause of the collapse. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal against acquittal and the same is hereby dismissed. The criminal revision filed by Rewal Singh is also dismissed.