Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 968 (ORI)

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-12-19

B.P.RAY

body2009
JUDGMENT : B.P. Ray, J. - In this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R. registered in Boudh P.S. Case No. 65 dated 18.5.2008 which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 153 of 2008 pending in the file of the S.D.J.M., Boudh. The case has been registered for the offence Under Sections 287 and 304A of I.P.C. The F.I.R. has been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the application. 2. The prosecution case as revealed from the F.I.R. is that the Petitioner is the owner of a rice mill located in village Biswanathpur. The deceased Apurna Sethy was working in the rice mill of the Petitioner. While the deceased was working in the rice mill of the Petitioner on 22.3.2004, her saree came in contact with the belt of the rice mill for which the deceased was dragged with the belt and subsequently died on the spot. It appears that an U.D. case was registered which was enquired into and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to strangulation on neck either homicidal or accidental strangulation by means of saree or a cloth. The informant, who was A.S.I. of Police while enquiring into the case, examined two witnesses. The witnesses who were examined by the informant clearly stated as would appear from the F.I.R. that the deceased Apurna Sethy while working in the rice mill of the Petitioner came in contact with conveyor belt of the rice mill as a result, the saree was dragged along with the belt and she died at the spot due to strangulation on her neck. On the basis of such result in the U.D. case, the A.S.I. of Police lodged the F.I.R. in question under Annexure 1 alleging that the occurrence took place due to coming in contact with the machinery of the rice mill of the Petitioner for which the Petitioner was liable for the offence Under Sections 287/304A I.P.C. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised the contentions in support the suggestion for quashing the F.I.R. under Annexure 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised the contentions in support the suggestion for quashing the F.I.R. under Annexure 1. The first submission of the learned Counsel was that the undisputed facts disclosed in the F.I.R. do not make out a case of any willful or deliberate act on the part of the Petitioner much less any rash or negligent act to attract the mischief of Section 304A of I.P.C. The second submission of the learned Counsel was that the occurrence having taken place on 22.3.2004 and the F.I.R. having been drawn up on 18.5.2008 inasmuch as no charge sheet having been filed, the prosecution is clearly barred u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the prosecution case as revealed from the F.I.R. clearly makes out a case u/s 304A of I.P.C. and the case is not barred by law of limitation. 4. The rival contentions require careful examination. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was employed in the rice mill of the Petitioner and her saree came in contact with the conveyor belt of the rice mill in course of employment on 22.3.2004. Since the saree of the deceased was dragged with the belt, the deceased died at the spot. There is no dispute to these factual aspects. Whether these facts would constitute the offence within the meaning of Section 304A of I.P.C, for which it is necessary to notice the provisions of Section 304A I.P.C. Section 304A I.P.C. is as follows: Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Unless the person does any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, which causes death of any person, the provisions of Section 304A would not be attracted. The facts disclosed in the F.I.R. do not show that the Petitioner had done any rash or negligent act which was responsible for the death of deceased Apurna Sethy. In other words, there was no willful or deliberate act on the part of the Petitioner which caused the death of the deceased. The facts disclosed in the F.I.R. do not show that the Petitioner had done any rash or negligent act which was responsible for the death of deceased Apurna Sethy. In other words, there was no willful or deliberate act on the part of the Petitioner which caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution is required to prove the rash or negligent acts on the part of the Petitioner, so as to prosecute him for the offence u/s 304A I.P.C. 5. On careful perusal of the facts disclosed in the F.I.R., this Court fails to find out any act on the part of the Petitioner which can be treated as rash or negligent act on his part which caused the death of the deceased. In the present case the death of the deceased was not the direct result of any rash or negligent act of the Petitioner inasmuch as the act complained of must be the proximate and efficient cause without intervention of another's negligence. Merely because the deceased was employed in the rice mill of the Petitioner, the same can never be termed as rash and negligent act of the Petitioner. In this connection learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Another. In such view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the allegation as set out in the F.I.R. hardly attracts the mischief of Section 304A I.P.C. So far as the offence u/s 287 I.P.C. is concerned, the F.I.R. is conspicuously silent that the Petitioner had done any negligent act with any machinery so as to endanger human life. Therefore, the offence u/s 287 I.P.C. is also not attracted. As such the conclusion is irresistible that the prosecution has miserably failed to prima facie establish a case Under Sections 287/304A I.P.C. against the Petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid conclusion with regard to the first submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is not necessary to examine the correctness of the second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the F.I.R. under Annexure 1 registered against the Petitioner in Boudh P.S. Case No. 65 dated 18.5.2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 153 of 2008 pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Boudh is quashed.