JUDGMENT J B PARDIWALA, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant - original accused has prayed for the following reliefs: "12A. To allow this petition. B. To quash and set aside FIR being I-CR No.336/2013 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad and all further proceedings arising therefrom including the chargesheet filed in connection with the said FIR and all proceedings of Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 pending before the Ld. 8th Additional Sessions Judge, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural). C. To quash and set aside the order dated 25.09.2017 passed below Exh. 4 in Sessions Case No.11/2015 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural) rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner. D. In the alternative, to direct that no case for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out. E. Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition to stay further proceedings of Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 pending before the Ld. 8th Additional Sessions Judge, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural). F. To pass such other and further order/s as deemed fit, just and proper by this Hon'ble Court." 2. As I am inclined to consider the reliefs prayed for in terms of para 12[C] and [D] only, my adjudication shall be in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The points for consideration are as under: [A] Can the driver of a vehicle be chargesheeted and tried for an offence punishable under Section 304, I.P.C., for his rash and negligent driving if it has resulted in the death of another person? [B] Is the plea of the driver in such a motor accident that he is liable to be chargesheeted and tried only for an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. sustainable? 4. The case of the applicant herein, in his own words, as pleaded in the application, is as under: "3.1 The petitioner submits that an FIR being I-CR No.336/2013 came to be registered on 18.09.2013 with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 297, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as "MV Act"). 3.2 That it was alleged in the said FIR that on 18.09.2013, when the respondent no.2 was going in his i-10 car bearing No.GJ-1-KA 9955 to his job, at Bopal Ring Road to Rajpath Road, the petitioner drove his vehicle being Land Cruiser Car from behind in full speed and overtook the car of the complainant. It is further alleged in the FIR that one motorcycle was going ahead of the car of the respondent No.2 which was dashed by the car of the petitioner herein. It is alleged that one boy was driving the motorcycle and one girl was a pillion rider and because of the hit the motorcycle, the boy and the girl fell down on the road and were dragged to some distance. It is alleged that both the victims were bleedings profusely. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 called 108 ambulance and injured were taken to Shalby hospital 3.3 That the respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR and the petitioner herein was arrested and released on bail on the very same day as the offences alleged were bailable. It is submitted that the injured girl succumbed to injuries and she died on 22.09.2013. Therefore, the police submitted a report on 23.09.2013 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad for addition of Section 304A of the IPC, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate on the very same day. 3.4 That thereafter on 14.11.2013, police submitted report to add section 304 (Part-ll) of the IPC and delete section 304A of the IPC and also requested the learned Magistrate to issue warrant against the petitioner relying on the report of the vehicle manufacturer. That apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 2312/2013 for anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble Sessions Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.12.2013 wherein the learned Judge observed that bail once granted continued to operate unless it has been cancelled by the Court or a warrant has been issued by the Court. 3.5 That thereafter the chargesheet came to be filed on 03.09.2014 against the petitioner herein and the case was committed to the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural) which was numbered as Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 (hereinafter "said case"). 3.6 That being aggrieved with the chargesheet., with the similar grounds as canvassed herein, the petitioner preferred an application below Exh. 3.6 That being aggrieved with the chargesheet., with the similar grounds as canvassed herein, the petitioner preferred an application below Exh. 4 in Sessions Case No.11/2015 under Section 117 of the CrPC for discharge before the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Mirzapur and the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the said application as detailed hereinabove. 3.7 That the ld. Judge has failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner and the order is bad in law and also required to be quashed and set aside." 5. Thus, the case is one of a vehicular accident. The vehicle in question was being driven by the applicant accused herein. In the accident, one girl travelling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider suffered injuries, and ultimately, succumbed in the hospital during the treatment. 6. Let me go straight to the F.I.R., which was lodged by an eyewitness to the accident, who was passing by at the relevant point of time. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Samirbhai Rameshbhai Bhatt, a resident of Ahmedabad. The F.I.R. dated 18th September 2013 reads as under: "18/9/2013 "My name is Samirbhai, son of Rameshbhai Jaydevbhai Bhatt, age 39 years, occupation service, residing at B­508, Baleshwarkrupa Flat, Opp. India Colony, Bopal, District Ahmedabad, Mobile No.8128990459. On being asked in person, I dictate the fact of my complaint that I live with my family at the above mentioned address and I am doing service as a Zonal Manager in the office of Autocop Security situated in the basement of Ghanshyam Avenue on Drive­in Road. Time of my service is from half past nine in the morning to half past seven in the evening. I have I­10 Car No.GJ­1­KA­9955 and I left for going to service in that car. Today, I took my car and left from my home at about quarter past nine and I was going towards Rajpath Club from Bopal Ring Road,. At that time, one motorcyclist was going ahead of my car with a girl sitting on the back seat. During that time, at about half past nine, one driver of the Landcruizer car of Toyota company drove the car at a very high speed and overtook my are from behind. At that time, one motorcyclist was going ahead of my car with a girl sitting on the back seat. During that time, at about half past nine, one driver of the Landcruizer car of Toyota company drove the car at a very high speed and overtook my are from behind. At the cross roads of Neptune Corporate House, the driver of the Landcruizer car dashed it with the said motorcycle from behind and the said boy and girl got dragged upto 100 feet along with the motorcycle. Therefore, I immediately stopped my car and as I say after getting down from my car that the girl had sustained serius injury on her head and was bleeding and the boy had also sustained serius injury on his head and he was bleeding. Hence, a phone call was immediately made to 108 Emergency services and both of them were taken to the Shalby Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, I informed the Police Control by dialing 100 and I noted the number of this Landcruzer car which met with the accident as CH­1­AA­7171. The driver of that car is present, whose name is Dr. Mayur Mukundbhai Desai, age 50 years, residing at 17 Abhishree Residency, Behind Kantam Party Plot, Rajpath Rangoli Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. On seeing his car, the number plate in the front is broken and the bonnet is pressed inside and the glass of the headlight on the right side is broken and that the car is parked on the side of the road. At a distance of about fifty feet from that car towards East side, Bajaj Discover motorcycle of the injured person is lying. On seeing its number, it is written as GJ­1­BK­526. It is lying on the road and most of the parts of the said motorcycle has been damaged. Name of the injured driver of the motorcycle is Rohit Siddhapuri and it was revealed that the name of the girl sitting behind is Hiralben, aged 22 years. When both of them were going on motorcycle from Bopal Ring Road towards Rajpath, the owner of Land Cruizer car dashed them near the cross roads of the building of Neptune Corporate House and thereby it caused an accident. Therefore, it is my complaint to make lawful inquiry against the driver of Land Cruizer Car No.CH­1­AS­7171 Dr. Mayur Mukundbhai Desai. When both of them were going on motorcycle from Bopal Ring Road towards Rajpath, the owner of Land Cruizer car dashed them near the cross roads of the building of Neptune Corporate House and thereby it caused an accident. Therefore, it is my complaint to make lawful inquiry against the driver of Land Cruizer Car No.CH­1­AS­7171 Dr. Mayur Mukundbhai Desai. My witnesses are the person who may be revealed in the investigation. My above complaint is true and correct and dictated by me. Before me, sd/­ in English Police Sub Inspector Vastrapur Police Station Ahmedabad." 7. It appears that the injured namely Hiral Thummar succumbed to the injuries on 23rd September 2013 and passed away during the treatment in the hospital. In such circumstances, the Police Inspector of the Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad city filed a report in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad city, for adding Section 304A of the I.P.C. The report reads as under: "Outward No.7467/2013 Vastrapur Police Station, Date: 23/9/2013 To, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural Court Mirzapur, Ahmedabad city. Sub: To add Section 304m) of the mo in the am registered vide ICR No. 336/2013 at Vastrapur Police Station. u/s 279, 337, 338 of the IPC and 177, 184 of the MV Act. I. M.K. Rana. Senior Police Inspector, Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad City request that, With reference to the subject noted above, in connection with complaint being CR No. 1­336/2013, registered at Vastrapur Police Station, as per Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC and Sections 177, 184 of the M.V. Act, filed by the complainant Samirbhai Rameshbhai Jaydevbhai Bhatt, residing at B/508, Baleshwarkrupa Flat, Opp India Colony, Bopal, Ahmedabad, it is submitted that at about 9:30 hours on 18/9/2013, the driver of one Land Cruizer car No. CH­O1­AA­7171, Mayur Mukundbhai Desai, residing at 17, Abhishree Residency, Rajpath Rangoli Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad drove the said car recklessly and at a very high speed and, thereby, he dashed it with a Bajaj Discover Bike No.GJ­10­BK526 at the cross roads Near Neptune Corporate House situated on the road going from Bopal Ring Road towards Rajpath Club. The driver of the bike Rohit Sompura and the girl Hiral Thummar, who was the pillion rider sustained serious injuries and they were admitted to Shalby Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the said girl Hiral Harsukhbhai Thummar died at 19:10 hours on 22/9/2013 during treatment. The driver of the bike Rohit Sompura and the girl Hiral Thummar, who was the pillion rider sustained serious injuries and they were admitted to Shalby Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the said girl Hiral Harsukhbhai Thummar died at 19:10 hours on 22/9/2013 during treatment. Therefore, as an offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC has been made in this case, you are requested to add Section 304(A) of the IPC in the FIR in this case. Date: 23/9/2013 Sd/­ illegible (M.K. Rana) Police Inspector Vastrapur Police Station Ahmedabad city." 8. Thereafter, on 14th November 2013, the Investigating Officer filed one another report in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad City, for addition of Section 304 I.P.C. The report reads as under: "Outward/Barnisi/8729/2013 Vastrapur Police Station, Dt:14/11/2013 "To, The Chief Judicial Magistrat Chief Court, 9 6' Mirzgpur, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad City. W Sub : To add section­304 (Part­2) of IPC deleting section 304(A) of IPC in F.I.R. registered vide I­C.R. No.336/13 with Vastrapur Police Station in connection with offence punishable u/s. 304(A), 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C. and 177, 184 of M.V.Act. I M.K.Rana, Sr. Police Inspector, Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, respectfully submit regarding the aforesaid subject that, The complainant of the present case Samirbhai Rameshbhai Jaydevbhai Bhatt, Resi : B/508, Baleshwar Krupa Flat, Opp. India Colony, Bopal Ahmedabad, lodged a complaint which came to be registered vide IC.R.336/13 with Vastrapur Police Station for the offence punishable u/s. 304(A), 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C. and 177, 184 of M.V.Act., wherein it has been stated that, on 18/09/2013 at 09:30 hrs. Mayur Mukundbhai Desai, Resi : 17, Abhishri Residency, Rajpath­Rangoli Road, Bodekdev. Ahmedabad, drove Land Cruiser vehicle bearing registration No. Ch­OlAA­7171 of his possession in rash and negligent manner and caused accident at cross road near Neptune Corporate House on the road going to Rajpath club from Ring road with one Discover Bike of Bajaj company bearing registration No. GJ­10­BK­526 driven by Rohit Hasmukhbhai Siddhpura, Resi : Kalawad Road, Satvaravad, Jamnagar and Hiren Hasmukhbhai Thummar, Age : 22 years, Resi: Vadvajadi, Ta. Lodhika, Kalwad Road, Rajkot, who was sitting as a pillion rider and thereby, caused serious injuries to them. Thereafter, they were admitted in Shelby hospital for the treatment. During the treatment, the girl namely Hiren Hasmukhbhai Thummar, died on 22/09/2013 at 19:10’O clock. Hence, this office has sent a report dated 23/09/2013 to the Ld. Lodhika, Kalwad Road, Rajkot, who was sitting as a pillion rider and thereby, caused serious injuries to them. Thereafter, they were admitted in Shelby hospital for the treatment. During the treatment, the girl namely Hiren Hasmukhbhai Thummar, died on 22/09/2013 at 19:10’O clock. Hence, this office has sent a report dated 23/09/2013 to the Ld. Court to add section­304(A) in F.I.R. of the present Case. The seriousness of the below mentioned issues which emerged during the investigation deserve due consideration. (1) In the present case, looking to the panchnama of the place of incident, the damage caused to the motor­cycle of the victim, the dent noticed on the bonnet of the Land Cruiser Vehicle of the accused driver, in spite of its solid body and other damage caused during the said accident, it appeared clearly that the vehicle of the accused driver must be in high speed. (2) The accused frequently commutes on the road between his home and the place of incident. Hence, it is obvious that he has the knowledge that if he drives his vehicle in high speed near the cross roads located on the road of his daily traveling, it may lead to serious accident with the other vehicles passing from there. Despite that, it appears that the accused driver drove his vehicle at high speed without reducing speed of his vehicle at the cross roads. (3) The Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, has issued a notification vide No. G/UPAK/196/2006 dated 27/09/2006, containing the guidelines regarding the speed limit for the vehicles driven on different roads of the Commissionerate area, wherein the maximum speed of 60 kms. is mentioned for four wheeler on the road of the said accident. It has been established by the evidence on the record that in spite of having knowledge of the aforesaid fact, the accused driver has violated the aforesaid guidelines and drove his vehicle at the speed of 86 kins/hrs during the occurrence of the said accident. (4) The eyewitness of the present case, Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai Aghera, Age : 48 years. Occupation : Contractor. Resi : Block No.10. (4) The eyewitness of the present case, Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai Aghera, Age : 48 years. Occupation : Contractor. Resi : Block No.10. Room No. 235, Ambedakar Colony, Bhudarpura Road, Ambawadi, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, has also stated in his statement that the accused of the present case dashed his Land Cruiser vehicle forcefully with the aforesaid motor­cycle due to which the boy and girl riding on the motor­cycle got flunged in the air upto 6 7 feet and fell on the bonnet of the Land Cruiser vehicle. Thereby, it gets proved that the vehicle of the accused was in high Speed. (5) Reconstruction panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn on 22/09/2013 in presence of the complainant, accused, pancha, FSL­officer and superior police officers, wherein it appears that the approximate distance between the spot of accident and the place where the boy fell is 20 mtrs. Whereas, approximate distance of 12 mtrs is found between the spot of accident and the place where the girl fell. The approximate distance between the spot of accident and falling of Motorcycle is found 23.3 mtrs. Such distance can be termed excessive. Hence, it appears that the accused driver was driving his vehicle at high speed. (6) It was found that during the occurrence of the said accident, the mobile phone of the accused was on. It shows that the accused while driving his vehicle was talking over his mobile phone. Hence, it appears that he has committed such act of talking over his mobile phone while driving though he was aware that his such act would cause any fatal accident. (7) During the investigation, an examination to know the speed of the aforesaid vehicle of the accused at the time of accident was undertaken through an expert from the Toyota Kirloskar company, wherein it was found that just before five seconds of the occurrence of the said accident, the maximum speed of the said vehicle was 86 kms/hrs. It establishes that the said vehicle was in high speed. (8) It gets proved that the accused driver was completely aware that he is driving the vehicle namely Land Cruiser having power of more cc. And powerful pick­up and if such vehicle is driven in prescribed speed on the road of the city and causes accident with any small vehicle, the driver of that vehicle can die. (8) It gets proved that the accused driver was completely aware that he is driving the vehicle namely Land Cruiser having power of more cc. And powerful pick­up and if such vehicle is driven in prescribed speed on the road of the city and causes accident with any small vehicle, the driver of that vehicle can die. (9) The said accident resulted into fatal accident due to which the victim Boy and Girl passing on the motorcycle were subjected to grievous injury and the girl namely Hiren Harsukhbhai Thummar died on 22/09/2013 during the treatment. Whereas, driver of the motorcycle Rohit Hasmukh Siddhpura is still under treatment at Shelby hospital due to serious injuries. He has not been able to recover due to injury on his head. On the basis of that also, it gets established that the accuseds vehicle was in extreme speed. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the accused was driving his vehicle with the speed of more than 86 kms/hrs on the day of incident and he has committed act of present offence though he was well aware that he is driving his vehicle with extreme speed on the road where many crossroads, approach road, movement of vehicles and persons are found and while driving in such a manner if any accident occurs, it would cause death to any person. Therefore, as it appears that offence punishable u/s. 304 (Part­2) of IPC has occurred in the present case, it is requested to issue warrant against the accused by adding section 304 (Part­2) of IPC after deleting section­304 (A) of IPC which was added earlier in the FIR. Date : 14/11/2013. (Sd/­) (Illegible) (M.K.Rana) Sr. Police Inspector, Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad City." 9. Thus, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against the applicant accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. and Sections 177 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions and on committal, the same came to be registered as the Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 in the Court of the 8th Additional Sessions Judge at Mirzapur Ahmedabad (Rural). 10. It appears that the accused applicant herein preferred a discharge application Exhibit : 4 in the Sessions Case No.11 of 2015. In the discharge application, the relief prayed for was limited. 10. It appears that the accused applicant herein preferred a discharge application Exhibit : 4 in the Sessions Case No.11 of 2015. In the discharge application, the relief prayed for was limited. The only relief prayed for in the discharge application is with regard to Section 304 of the I.P.C. According to the applicant herein, the case is not one of culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C., but the same is one of rash and negligent act punishable under Section 304A of the I.P.C. The discharge application was heard by the Sessions Court and vide order dated 25th September 2017, the same came to be rejected. 11. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Court below declining to discharge the applicant accused from the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C., the applicant has come up with this petition. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ACCUSED: 12. Mr. S.V. Raju, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently submitted that even if the entire case put up by the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, the case is not one of culpable homicide, but the same at best could be said to be one of rush and negligent driving punishable under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. Mr. Raju submitted that the police could not have filed chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. According to Mr. Raju, Section 304 of the I.P.C. can be made applicable provided the case falls within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the I.P.C. Mr. Raju, in support of this contention, has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Pratik Jagdishbhai Thakkar and Others vs. State of Gujarat and another [Special Criminal Application No.92488 of 2016 decided on 5th May 2017]. 13. Mr. Raju submitted that in the report filed by the Investigating Officer, it has been stated that while the applicant accused was travellilng in his car at high speed, he was talking with someone on his mobile. According to Mr. Raju, there is no an iota of evidence in the entire chargesheet to even remotely suggest anything with regard to talking on mobile. According to Mr. According to Mr. Raju, there is no an iota of evidence in the entire chargesheet to even remotely suggest anything with regard to talking on mobile. According to Mr. Raju, it is not clear as to on what basis the Investigating Officer has come forward with the case that the accused was talking on his mobile at the time of the accident. Mr. Raju would submit that driving at a high speed, by itself, does not imply negligence or rashness much less the knowledge that the same may cause death of any person. 14. Mr. Raju submitted that the information about the accident was given by the accused himself to the police and not by the first informant. The applicant accused immediately called up the Satellite Police Station, and thereafter, both the injured were admitted in the hospital at the earliest. The applicant accused ensured that best of the treatment is given to both the injured and the entire medical expenses in lakhs were borne by the applicant. According to Mr. Raju, his client acted as a good samaritan. According to Mr. Raju, the case is not one of hit and run. 15. Mr. Raju, in such circumstances, prayed that the accused is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. According to Mr. Raju, his client can at best be tried for the offence of rash and negligent act punishable under Section 304A of the I.P.C. Mr. Raju, in the last, submitted that the Trial Court committed a serious error in rejecting the discharge application. The impugned order passed by the Court below be quashed and the applicant accused be discharged from the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: 16. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed this application. According to the learned A.P.P., no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Court below in rejecting the discharge application. The learned A.P.P. would submit that the case on hand is one in which the applicant was driving his car at high speed, and which ultimately, led to a fatal accident. The learned A.P.P. submitted that a young girl lost her life. The learned A.P.P. would submit that the case on hand is one in which the applicant was driving his car at high speed, and which ultimately, led to a fatal accident. The learned A.P.P. submitted that a young girl lost her life. According to the learned A.P.P., there is a prima facie case to put the accused on trial for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. According to the learned A.P.P., the accused could be said to have the requisite knowledge that by driving his vehicle fast, the same may endanger the life of a human being. 17. According to the learned A.P.P., whether the case is one of culpable homicide or rash and negligent act can be looked into by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that may be led by both the prosecution as well as the defence. At this point of time, no case is made out by the applicant accused for his discharge from the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. 18. Having regard to the submission of Mr. Raju regarding the mobile phone, I inquired with the learned A.P.P. in this regard to show me the evidence from the papers of the investigation as regards the allegation that the applicant was talking on his mobile at the time of the accident. The learned A.P.P., with her usual fairness, pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate that the accused, at the relevant point of time, was talking on his mobile. According to the learned A.P.P., as to on what basis the Investigating Officer, in his report, for the purpose of addition of Section 304 of the I.P.C., has said that the accused was talking on his mobile at the time of the accident is not forthcoming. 19. The learned A.P.P., in support of her submissions, has placed reliance on the following two decisions of the Supreme Court: [1] State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salimkhan, (2004) AIR SC 1189. [2] Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 . 20. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned A.P.P. submitted that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 21. [2] Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 . 20. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned A.P.P. submitted that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 21. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the case is one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or one of rush and negligent act punishable under Section 304A of the I.P.C. 22. Since the subject matter before me is an order passed by the trial Court rejecting the discharge application, I deem it necessary to consider the position of law so far as the scope of discharge under Section 227 of the Code is concerned. This issue of the scope of a discharge application has been considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bajja and ors., (1990) AIR SC 1962 (1). I may quote the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in this regard, as contained in paragraphs 4 to 7. "4. Under Section 14(3) of the Act a Designated Court is conferred with the powers of a Court of Session and is required to try any offence under the Act 'as if it were' a Court of Session. The procedure which it must follow at the trial is the one prescribed in the Code for the trial of cases before a Court of Session. This is of course subject to the other provisions of the Act which means that if there is any provision in the Act which is not consistent with the procedure stipulated in the Code for such trials, it is the procedure in the Act that shall prevail. The procedure for trial before a Court of Session is set out in Chapter XVIII of the Code. Section 225 places the public prosecutor in charge of the conduct of the prosecution. Section 226 requires him to open the prosecution case by describing the charge against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to bring home the guilt against the accused. Once that is done the Judge has to consider whether or not to frame a charge. Section 226 requires him to open the prosecution case by describing the charge against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to bring home the guilt against the accused. Once that is done the Judge has to consider whether or not to frame a charge. Section 227 of the Code reads as under: "If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." Under this section a duty is cast on the Judge to apply his mind to the material on record and if on examination of the record he does not find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must discharge him. On the other hand if after such consideration and hearing he is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, he must proceed to frame a charge as required by Section 228 of the Code. Once the charge is framed the trial must ordinarily end in the conviction or acquittal of the accused. This is in brief the scheme of Sections 225 to 235 of the Code, 5. Section 227, introduced for the first time in the New Code, confers a special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if 'upon consideration' of the record and documents he considers 'that there is not sufficient ground' for proceeding against the accused. In other words his consideration of the record and document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial against the accused. If he comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228, if not he will discharge the accused. It must be remembered that this section was introduced in the Code to avoid waste of public time over cases which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure. 6. The next question is what is the scope and ambit of the 'consideration' by the trial Court at that stage. It must be remembered that this section was introduced in the Code to avoid waste of public time over cases which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure. 6. The next question is what is the scope and ambit of the 'consideration' by the trial Court at that stage. Can he marshal the evidence found on the record of the case and in the documents placed before him as he would do on the conclusion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution after the charge is framed? It is obvious that since he is at the stage of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge, his enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged. At that stage he may sift the evidence for that limited purpose but he is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. All that he is called upon to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and for this limited purpose he must weigh the material on record as well as the documents relied on by the prosecution. In the State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1978) 1 SCR 257 : ( AIR 1977 SC 2018 ) this Court observed that at the initial stage of the framing of a charge if there is a strong suspicion-evidence which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt, of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt, of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 2 SCR 229 : ( AIR 1979 SC 366 ) this Court after considering the scope of Section 227 observed that the words 'no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused clearly show that the Judge is not merely a post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but he has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but he may evaluate the material to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value establish the ingredients constituting the said offence. After considering the case law on the subject, this Court deduced as under: "(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) 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 adduced 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. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence adduced 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. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which (sic) under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 7. Again in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : ( AIR 1980 SC 52 ) this Court observed in paragraph 18 of the judgment as under:- "The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. From the above discussion, it seems well settled that at the Sections 227- 228 stage 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 if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case." 23. In Union of India Vs. 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 if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case." 23. In Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) AIR SC 366 (1) the Supreme Court considered the question regarding discharge under Section 227 of the Code. I may quote the observations of the Supreme Court as contained in paras 7 to 10. "7. Section 227 of the Code runs thus:- "If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." The words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post-office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. 8. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. 8. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1978) 1 SCR 257 : ( AIR 1977 SC 2018 ) where Untwalia J. speaking for the Court observed as follows (at p. 2019):- "Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guild of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stages is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial." This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge in order to frame a charge against the accused. Even under the Code of 1898 this Court has held that a committing Magistrate had ample powers to weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a case of commitment to the Sessions Judge has been made out. 9. Even under the Code of 1898 this Court has held that a committing Magistrate had ample powers to weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a case of commitment to the Sessions Judge has been made out. 9. In the case of K. P. Raghavan v. M. H. Abbas, (1967) AIR SC 740 this Court observed as follows (at p. 742):- "No doubt a Magistrate enquiring into a case under S. 209, Cr. P. C. is not to act as a mere Post Office, and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session". To the same effect is the later decision of this Court in the case of Alamohan Das v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 520 : (AIR SC 863) where Shah, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows (at p. 866) :- "A Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is his duty to discharge the accused : if there is some evidence on which a conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit the case." In the aforesaid case this Court was considering the scope and ambit of Section 209 of the Code of 1898. 10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test of 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. (3) The test of 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. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 24. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and ors., (2009) 8 SCC 617 , the Supreme Court once again reiterated the well settled principles, or to put it in other words, the test for the purpose of framing of charge. I may quote the following observations made by the Supreme Court, as contained in paragraphs 51 to 54. "51. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the tests for the purpose of framing of charge and the one for recording a judgment of conviction are different. A distinction must be borne in mind that whereas at the time of framing of the charge, the court may take into consideration the fact as to whether the accused might have committed the offence or not; at the time of recording a judgment of conviction, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. 52. In this case, the probative value of the materials on record has not been gone into. The materials brought on record have been accepted as true at this stage. It is true that at this stage even a defence of an accused cannot be considered. But, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. 52. In this case, the probative value of the materials on record has not been gone into. The materials brought on record have been accepted as true at this stage. It is true that at this stage even a defence of an accused cannot be considered. But, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Tulsi that where the entire materials collected during investigation have been placed before the court as part of the charge-sheet, the court at the time of framing of the charge could only look to those materials whereupon the prosecution intended to rely upon and ignore the others which are in favour of the accused. 53. The question as to whether the court should proceed on the basis as to whether the materials brought on record even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety disclose commission of an offence or not must be determined having regard to the entirety of materials brought on record by the prosecution and not on a part of it. If such a construction is made, sub-section (5) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall become meaningless. 54. The prosecution, having regard to the right of an accused to have a fair investigation, fair inquiry and fair trial as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot at any stage be deprived of taking advantage of the materials which the prosecution itself has placed on record. If upon perusal of the entire materials on record, the court arrives at an opinion that two views are possible, charges can be framed, but if only one and one view is possible to be taken, the court shall no put the accused to harassment by asking him to face a trial. {See State of Maharashtra and Others v. Som Nath Thapa and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 659 }." 25. I may also quote with profit certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Keshub Mahindra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 6 SCC 129 (popularly known as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case). I may quote observations made by the Court in paras 19 to 20 of the said decision. 19. I may also quote with profit certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Keshub Mahindra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 6 SCC 129 (popularly known as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case). I may quote observations made by the Court in paras 19 to 20 of the said decision. 19. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accused on the other had submitted that even if taking the material available on record at the stage on its face value the short question is whether any charge could have been framed against the accused under Section 304 Part-II IPC with our without the aid of Section 35 IPC and even for that matter any charges could have been framed under Sections 326, 324 or 429 with or without the aid of Section 35 IPC. We may at once state that both the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have taken the view on the aforesaid material that a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution requiring the accused to face the aforesaid charges and the trial of the accused on these charges can not be cut short or nipped in the bud in the light of the aforesaid material which has to be accepted as prima facie true and reliable at this preliminary stage of framing o charges. 20. It, therefore, becomes necessary for us now to address ourselves on this moot question. As noted earlier the main charge framed against all the accused is under section 304 Part II IPC. So far as Accused 2,3, 4 and 12 are concerned, they are also charged with offences under sections 326, 324 IPC and 429 IPC read with Section 35 IPC while Accused 5 to 9 are charged substantially with these offences also. We shall first deal with the charges framed against the accused concerned under the main provisions of Section 304 Part II IPC. We shall first deal with the charges framed against the accused concerned under the main provisions of Section 304 Part II IPC. A look at Section 304 Part II shows that the accused concerned can be charged under that provision for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and when being so charged if it is alleged that the act of the accused concerned is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as likely to cause death the charged offences would fall under Section 304 Part II. However, before any charge under Section 304 Part II can be framed, the material on record must at least prima facie show that the accused is guilty of culpable homicide and the act allegedly committed by him must amount to culpable homicide. However, if the material relied upon for framing such a charge against the accused concerned falls short of even prima facie indicating that the accused appeared to be guilty of an offence of culpable homicide Section 304 Part I or Part in the interest of justice would get out of the picture. In this connection we have to keep in view Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code which defines culpable homicide. It lays downs that :- Whoever cause death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Consequently, the material relied upon by the prosecution for framing a charge under Section 304 Part II must at least prima facie indicate that the accused had done an act which had caused death with at least such a knowledge that he was by such act likely to cause death. The entire material which the prosecution relied upon before the trial court for framing the charge and to which we have made a detailed reference earlier, in our view, cannot support such a charge unless it indicates prima facie that on that fateful night when the Plant was run at Bhopal it was run by the accused concerned with the knowledge that such running of the plant was likely to cause deaths of human beings. It cannot be disputed that ere act of running a Plant as per the permission granted by the authorities would not be a criminal act. Even assuming that it was a defective Plant and it was dealing with a very toxic and hazardous substance like MIC the mere act of storing such a material by th accused in Tank NO. 610 could not even prima facie suggest that the accused concerned thereby had knowledge that they were likely to cause death of human beings. In fairness to the prosecution it was not suggested and could not be suggested that the accused had an intention to kill any human being while operating the Plant. Similarly on the aforesaid material placed on record it could not be even prima facie suggested that the accused had an intention to kill any human being while operating the Plant. Similarly on the aforesaid material placed on record it could not be even prima facie suggested by the prosecution that any of the accused had a knowledge that by operating the plant on that fateful night whereat such dangerous and highly volatile substance like MIC was stored they had the knowledge that by this very act itself they were likely to cause death of any human being. Consequently, in our view taking the entire material as aforesaid on its face value and assuming it to represent the correct factual position in connection with the operation of the Plant at Bhopal on that fateful night it could not be said that the said material even prima facie called for framing of a charge against the accused concerned under Section 304 Part II IPC on the specious plea that the said act of the accused amounted to culpable homicide only because the operation of the Plant on that night ultimately resulted in deaths of a number of human beings and cattle. It is also pertinent to note that when the complaint was originally filed suo motu by the police authorities at Bhopal and the criminal case was registered at the Police Station Hanumanganj, Bhopal as Case No. 1104 of 1984 it was registered under Section 304-A of the IPC. We will come to that provision a little later. It is also pertinent to note that when the complaint was originally filed suo motu by the police authorities at Bhopal and the criminal case was registered at the Police Station Hanumanganj, Bhopal as Case No. 1104 of 1984 it was registered under Section 304-A of the IPC. We will come to that provision a little later. Suffice it to say at this stage that on the entire material produced by the prosecution in support of the charge it could not be said even prima facie that it made the accused liable to face the charge under Section 304 Part-II. In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Calcutta High Court to which our attention was drawn by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Rajendra Singh for the appellants. In the case of Adam Ali Taluqdar v. King-Emperor a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court made the following pertinent observations which interpreting Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC : Although to constitute an offence under Section 304, Part 2, there must be no intention of causing death or such injury as the offender knew as likely to cause death, there must still be a common intention to do an action with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death though without the intention of causing death. Each of the assailants may know that the act, they are jointly doing, is one that is likely to cause death but have no intention to causing death, yet they may certainly have the common intention to do that act and therefore Section 34 can apply to a case under Section 304, Part 2. 26. Thus, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore-noted cases, it could be said that at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, it is permissible for the Court to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is permissible for the Court for this limited purpose to sift the evidence, as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as a gospel truth, even if it is opposed to the common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. It is permissible for the Court for this limited purpose to sift the evidence, as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as a gospel truth, even if it is opposed to the common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. 27. According to the case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of the accident, the accused was travelling in his car, and at that point of time, it rammed into a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven by one Rohit Siddhapura and a lady aged 22 years by named Hiral Thummar was the pillion rider. As a result of the accident, both got dragged on the road and suffered severe injuries, more particularly, on their head. The pillion rider namely Hiral Thummar, ultimately, succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. According to the prosecution, as the applicant was driving his car at high speed, he could be imputed with the requisite knowledge that the same was likely to cause death. 28. Let me first deal with the submission of Mr. Raju that the police has no jurisdiction or the power to file chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. According to Mr. Raju, the chargesheet can either be filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 or 304 Part A of the I.P.C. As noted above, Mr. Raju, has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Pratik Thakkar in support of his submissions. In Pratik Thakkar , this Court recorded the facts as under: "On 29/09/2011 at 10:30 in the night, the first informant visited the house of his friend Kapil. All other friends of the first informant were present at the house of Kapil. At that point of time, one of the friends of the first informant by name Darshan gave a call on the same number, however, the person who was called up did not reveal his identity. He in turn started hurling abuses. The first informant and his friends were asked to come to the Kapadiya School, Gurukul Road and accordingly, all reached at the said place, but none was present at that particular place. He in turn started hurling abuses. The first informant and his friends were asked to come to the Kapadiya School, Gurukul Road and accordingly, all reached at the said place, but none was present at that particular place. At about 11:30 in the night, the first informant received a phone call from one Krunal Bharatbhai Thakkar, a resident of the same apartment informing the first informant that he should lock the main door of his flat as about 15 - 20 persons were marching towards the apartment riding on 7 to 8 motorcycles, armed with weapons like hockey, sticks, etc. The first informant immediately locked the door from inside. Two of his friends named Bhumit and Rahul hid themselves in one room opposite to the toilet. One Anish hid himself in the bathroom and Kapil, the deceased went out on the balcony and locked the door from outside. At that point of time, few unknown persons started kicking the main door of the flat and were shouting "where is every one, no one will be spared today". All those persons broke open the main door of the flat and stormed inside. Those persons started administering threats. As the first informant and his friends had hid themselves in the different rooms, the persons who had come with weapons left the place. At that point of time, Krunal called up Rahul and informed that Kapil had jumped from the balcony and had fallen down. Kapil was thereafter shifted to the hospital in 108 ambulance. It is alleged that the accused persons who had come at the flat of the first informant while retreiving took away the mobile phones, which were lying in the drawing room." In para 4, the Court recorded the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants: "Mr. Lakhani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants vehemently submitted that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section-304 of the IPC or Section-395 of the IPC are spelt out. It is submitted that the applicants herein did not even touch any of the witnesses including the deceased. It is submitted that the applicants herein did not even touch any of the witnesses including the deceased. They might have created fear in the minds of all and more particularly, the deceased who tried to make good his escape by jumping from the balcony of the apartment to the other apartment situated bank opposite. However, in the process, fell down and sustained serious injuries. According to Mr. Lakhani, the act would not fall within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Mr. Lakhani submits that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity are spelt out. The chargesheet could not have been filed for the offence under Section-395 of the IPC on the charge or allegations that the accused persons took away mobile phones, which were lying in the flat. According to Mr. Lakhani by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit dacoity. According to Mr. Lakhani, even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, the dispute between the applicants and the deceased and his friends was relating to a girl by name Sweety. On the date of the incident, the writ-applicants stormed into the flat of the first informant with the intention to thrash all those persons who were hiding themselves. According to Mr. Lakhani, if out of fear, the deceased tried to make good his escape by jumping from the balcony of the fourth floor to the other building and in the process fell down, it cannot be said that such act of the accused persons being so imminently dangerous that it caused the death of the deceased." The Court, thereafter, proceeded to hold as under: "11. The moot question that falls for my consideration is whether the Police could have registered the FIR for the offence under Section-304 of the IPC. The second question that falls for my consideration is whether the Police could have filed chargesheet for the offence under Section-304 of the IPC. The third question that falls for my consideration is that how could the police have decided whether the case falls within any of the exceptions to Section-300 of the IPC. 14. The second question that falls for my consideration is whether the Police could have filed chargesheet for the offence under Section-304 of the IPC. The third question that falls for my consideration is that how could the police have decided whether the case falls within any of the exceptions to Section-300 of the IPC. 14. I am of the view that, in the first instance, no first information report can be registered for the offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. I am also of the view that the police, at the end of the investigation, could not have filed the charge-sheet for the offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code would apply provided the case falls within one of the exceptions to section 300 of the I.P.C. If a charge-sheet is filed for the offence of murder, and if it is the defence case of the accused that the offence is one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, then he has to bring the case within one of the exceptions to section 300. 15. In the aforesaid context, I may refer to and rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harendra Nath Mandal vs. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 435 , in which the Supreme Court observed as under; Section 304 does not create an offence but provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In view of section 299 of the Penal Code, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. In view of section 300 of the Penal Code, except in cases covered by the five exceptions mentioned therein, culpable homicide is murder. It is well- known that if a death is caused and the case is covered by any one of the five exceptions of section 300 then such culpable homicide shall not amount to murder. In view of section 300 of the Penal Code, except in cases covered by the five exceptions mentioned therein, culpable homicide is murder. It is well- known that if a death is caused and the case is covered by any one of the five exceptions of section 300 then such culpable homicide shall not amount to murder. Section 304 provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and draws a distinction in the penalty to be inflicted in cases covered by one of the five exceptions, where an intention to kill is present and where there is only knowledge that death will be a likely result, but intention to cause death or such bodily injury which is likely to cause death is absent. To put it otherwise if the act of the accused falls within any of the clauses 1, 2 and 3 of section 300 but is covered by any of the five exceptions it will be punishable under the first part of section 304. If, however, the act comes under clause 4 of section 300 i.e. the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death but without any intention to cause death and is covered by any of the exceptions, it will be punishable under the second part. The first part of section 304 applies where there is guilty intention whereas the second part applies where there is guilty knowledge. But before an accused is held guilty and punished under first part or second part of section 304, a death must have been caused by him under any of the circumstances mentioned in the five exceptions to section 300, which include death caused while deprived of power of self-control under grave and sudden provocation, while exercising in good faith the right of private defence of person or property, and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation. 16. Thus, section 304 of the Indian Penal Code does not create an offence of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. That section provides for punishment in case of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. The first part of it provides for punishment of such offence, when the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. That section provides for punishment in case of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. The first part of it provides for punishment of such offence, when the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The second part of it provides for punishment in a case when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The offence that is made punishable under that Section is the same offence namely; an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It only provides different punishments, taking into consideration, whether the act was done with a particular intention or the act was done with the knowledge that is likely to cause death without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. It will be significant to note that this Section 304 covers cases also where the offence is prima facie an offence of murder, punishable under Section 302, but in view of the application of any one of the exceptions given in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence of murder is reduced to an offence of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. 17. At this stage, and in the aforesaid context, I must look into section 105 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under; 105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions. When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Illustrations (a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A. (b) A, accused of murder, alleges, that by grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control. Illustrations (a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A. (b) A, accused of murder, alleges, that by grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control. The burden of proof is on A. (c) Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), provides that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be subject to certain punishments. 18. Thus, the plain reading of section 105 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the burden of proving the existence of circumstances, bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso, is upon the accused and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. 19. In the aforesaid context, I may refer to and rely upon a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijayee Singh and Others. vs. State of U.P., (1990) AIR SC 1459, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under; 22. At this stage it becomes necessary to consider the meaning of the words "the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances" occurring in Section 105 of the Evidence Act. Section 4 of the Act explains the meaning of the term "shall presume" as to mean that the Court shall regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. 'From a combined reading of these two Sections it may be inferred that where the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception is pleaded or is raised the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances as proved unless and until it is disproved. In Section 3 of the Act meaning of the terms "proved", "disproved" and "not proved" are given. As per this provision, a fact is said to be "proved" when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. As per this provision, a fact is said to be "proved" when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. A fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes 597 that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved." 23. The first part of Section 105 as noted above lays down that when a person is accused of an offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions or proviso is on him and the latter part of it lays down that the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. In a given case the accused may discharge the burden by expressly proving the existence of such circumstances, thereby he is able to disprove the absence of circumstances also. But where he is unable to discharge the burden by expressly proving the existence of such circumstances or he is unable to disprove the absence of such circumstances, then the case would fall in the category of "not proved" and the Court may presume the absence of such circumstances. In this background we have to examine the meaning of the words "the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances" bearing in mind the general principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of every reasonable doubt should go to the accused. 24. It will be useful to refer to some of the passages from the text books of outstanding authors on evidence and then proceed to consider the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court cases on this aspect. In Phipson on Evidence, 13th edn. page 44, a passage reads as follows: "The burden is upon the prosecution of proving a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt before he is convicted. In Phipson on Evidence, 13th edn. page 44, a passage reads as follows: "The burden is upon the prosecution of proving a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt before he is convicted. Even where the evidential burden shifts to the defendant the burden of establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt remains upon the prosecution and never changes. If on the whole case the jury have such a doubt the defendant is entitled to be acquitted." Another passage at page 48 reads as follows: "In criminal cases the prosecution discharge their evidential burden by adducing sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie case against the accused. If no evidence is called for the defence the tribunal of fact must decide whether the prosecution has succeeded in discharging its persuasive 598 burden by proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any defence evidence, the chances that the prosecution has so succeeded fare greater. Hence the accused may be said to be under an evidential burden if the prosecution has established a prima facie case. Discharge of the evidential burden by defence is not a pre-requisite to an acquittal. The accused is entitled to be acquitted if at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner .....No matter what the charge ..... the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. XX XX XX XX XX XX In many cases, however, the accused's defence will involve introducing new issues, for example, automatism, provocation, self-defence, duress, etc. Once there is any evidence to support such "explanations" the onus of disproving them rests upon the prosecution. The accused, either by cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses or by evidence called on his behalf or by a combination of the two, must place before the court such material as makes the defence a live issue fit and proper to be left to the jury. The accused, either by cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses or by evidence called on his behalf or by a combination of the two, must place before the court such material as makes the defence a live issue fit and proper to be left to the jury. But once he has succeeded in doing this and thereby discharged his evidential burden it is then for the Crown to destroy that defence in such a manner as to leave in the jury's minds no reasonable doubt that the accused cannot be absolved on the grounds of the alleged facts constituting the defence." Dealing with the presumptions of law, the author has noted on page 60, thus: "Generally in criminal cases (unless otherwise directed by statute and subject to 4-15 ante) the presumption of innocence casts on the prosecutor the burden of proving every ingredient of the offence, even though negative averments be involved therein. Thus, in cases of murder, the burden 599 of proving death as a result of a voluntary act of the accused and malice on his part is on the prosecution. On charges of rape, etc. the burden of proving nonconsent by the prosecutrix is on the prosecution and in bigamy, that of proving the defendant's knowledge that his or her spouse was alive within the seven years last past." Wigmore on evidence, dealing with the "Legal Effect of a presumption" (3rd ed., Vol. IX p. 289) explains: "It must be kept in mind that the peculiar effect of a presumption 'of law' (that is, the real presumption) is merely to invoke a rule of law compelling the jury to reach the conclusion 'in the absence of evidence to the contrary' from the opponent. If the opponent does offer evidence to the contrary (sufficient to satisfy the Judge's requirement of some evidence), the presumption disappears as a rule of Taylor in his 'Treatise on the Law of Evidence' (12th Edn. Vol. 1 page 259) points out: "On the two fold ground that a prosecutor must prove every fact necessary to substantiate his charge against a prisoner, and that the law will presume innocence in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the burden of proof, unless shifted by legislative interference, will fall in criminal proceedings on the prosecuting party, though, to convict, he must necessarily have recourse to negative evidence. Thus, if a statute, in the direct description of an offence, and not by way of proviso (a), contain negative matter, the indictment or information must also contain a negative allegation, which must in general be supported by prima facie evidence." Dealing with the presumptions, the author says: "The proper direction as to onus of proof where prima facie evidence has been given on the part of the prosecution which, if unanswered, would raise a presumption upon which the jury might be justified in finding a verdict of guilty, and the defendant has called evidence to rebut that presumption, is that if they accepted the explanation given 600 by and on behalf of the prisoner, or if that explanation raised in their minds a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, they should acquit him as the onus of proof that he was guilty still lay upon the prosecution. If upon the whole evidence the jury are left in a real state of doubt the prosecution has failed to satisfy the onus of proof which lies upon them." It is held in Nanavati's case that under Section 105 of the act the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions, i.e. the Court shall regard the nonexistence of such circumstances as proved till they are disproved, but this presumption can be rebutted by the accused by introducing evidence to sup- port his plea of accident in the circumstances mentioned therein. This presumption may also be rebutted by admissions made or circumstances elicited from the evidence led by the prosecution or by the combined effect of such circumstances and the evidence adduced by the accused. Dealing with the ingredients of the offence to be proved by the prosecution and the burden to be discharged under Section 105 of the Evidence Act by the accused and a reasonable doubt that may arise on the basis of such rebuttal evidence by the accused, it is observed: "An illustration may bring out the meaning. Dealing with the ingredients of the offence to be proved by the prosecution and the burden to be discharged under Section 105 of the Evidence Act by the accused and a reasonable doubt that may arise on the basis of such rebuttal evidence by the accused, it is observed: "An illustration may bring out the meaning. The prosecution has to prove that the accused shot dead the deceased intentionally and thereby committed the offence of murder within the meaning of S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code; the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of murder, and one of the ingredients of that offence is that the accused intentional- ly shot the deceased; the accused pleads that he shot at the deceased by accident without any intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means with proper care and caution, the accused against whom a presumption is drawn under S. 105 of the Evidence Act that the shooting was not by accident in the circumstances mentioned in S. 80 of the Indian Penal Code, may adduce evidence to rebut that presumption. That evidence may not be sufficient to prove all the ingredients of S. 80 of the Indian Penal Code, but may prove that the shooting was by accident or inadvertence, i.e. it was done without any intention or requisite state of mind, which is the essence of the offence, within the meaning of S. 300 Indian Penal Code. or at any rate may throw a reasonable doubt on the essential ingredients of the offence of murder. In that event, though the accused failed to bring his case 601 within the terms of S. 80 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court may hold that the ingredients of the offence have not been established or that the prosecution has not made out the case against the accused. In this view it might be said that the general burden to prove the ingredients of the offence, unless there is a specific statute to the contrary, is always on the prosecution, but the burden to prove the circumstances coming under the exceptions lies upon the accused. In this view it might be said that the general burden to prove the ingredients of the offence, unless there is a specific statute to the contrary, is always on the prosecution, but the burden to prove the circumstances coming under the exceptions lies upon the accused. The failure on the part of the accused to establish all the circumstances bringing his case under the exception does not absolve the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence; indeed, the evidence, though insufficient to establish the exception, may be sufficient to negative one or more of the ingredients of the offence." In Dahyabhai's case as already noted, the relevant portion reads thus: "The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a Judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in S. 299 of the Penal Code." 25. The maxim that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. Section 205 places 'burden of proof' on the accused in the first part and in the second part we find a presumption which the Court can draw regarding the absence of the circumstances which presumption is always rebuttable. Therefore, taking the Section as a whole the 'burden of proof' and the presumption have to be considered together. It is axiomatic when the evidence is sufficient as to prove the existence of a fact conclusively then no difficulty arises. But where the accused introduces material to dis- place the presumption which may affect the prosecution case or create a reasonable doubt about the existence of one or other ingredients of the offence and then it would amount to a case where prosecution failed to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubt. The initial obligatory presumption that the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances gets lifted when a plea of exception is raised. The initial obligatory presumption that the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances gets lifted when a plea of exception is raised. More so when there are circumstances on the record (gathered from the prosecution evidence, chief and cross examinations, probabilities and circumstances, if any, introduced by the accused, either by adducing evidence or otherwise) creating a reasonable doubt about the existence of the ingredients of the offence. In case of such a reasonable doubt, the Court has to give the benefit of the same to the accused. The accused may also show on the basis of the material a preponderance of probability in favour of his plea. If there are absolutely no circumstances at all in favour of the existence of such an exception then the rest of the enquiry does not arise inspite of a mere plea being raised. But if the accused succeeds in creating a reasonable doubt or shows preponderance of probability in favour of his plea, the obligation on his part under Section 105 gets discharged and he would be entitled to an acquittal. 26. From what has been discussed above it emerges that the presumption regarding the absence of existence of circumstances regarding the exception can be rebutted by the accused by introducing evidence in any one of the manners mentioned above. If from such a rebuttal, a reasonable doubt arises regarding his guilt, the accused should get the benefit of the same. Such a reasonable doubt consequently negatives one or more of the ingredients of the offence charged, for instance, from such a rebuttal evidence, a reasonable doubt arises about the right of private defence then it follows that the prosecution has not established the necessary ingredients of intention to commit the offence. In that way the benefit of a reasonable doubt which arises from the legal and factual considerations even under Section 105 of the Evidence Act should necessarily go to the accused. 27. It can be argued that the concept of 'reasonable doubt' is vague in nature and the standard of 'burden of proof' contemplated under Section 105 should be somewhat specific, therefore, it is difficult to reconcile both. But the general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reason- able doubt, are to be borne in mind. But the general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reason- able doubt, are to be borne in mind. The 'reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 while explaining the meaning of the words "proved", "disproved" and "not proved" lays down the standard of proof, namely, about the existence or nonexistence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man. The Section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, "believe it to exist" and secondly in which though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The Act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the Court believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable in the view of a prudent man and now we come to the third stage where in the view of a prudent man the fact is not proved i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is this doubt which occurs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal disputes. It is something different from moral conviction and it is also different from a suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by 'a prudent man'." 29. Thus, it appears that this Court in the peculiar facts of the case took the view that the case was not one falling within clause fourthly to Section 300 of the I.P.C. and was not a case of murder. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by 'a prudent man'." 29. Thus, it appears that this Court in the peculiar facts of the case took the view that the case was not one falling within clause fourthly to Section 300 of the I.P.C. and was not a case of murder. The Court, thereafter, proceeded to hold that if the case of the prosecution is one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, then the case should fall within one of the exceptions to Section 300 and the exception can be pleaded only by the accused in his defence, as provided under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. However, the Court lost sight of Section 299 of the I.P.C. It appears that the case of the prosecution was that the act on the part of the accused persons in creating panic and fear in the mind of the deceased which led the deceased to jump from one building to another could be said to be an act falling within Section 299 of the I.P.C. To put it in other words, the case of the prosecution in the said case appears to be that the accused persons committed the act with the knowledge that they were likely by such act to cause death of the deceased. 30. The decision of this Court in the case of Pratik Thakkar does not lay down the correct proposition of law. The decision of this Court in Pratik Thakkar should not be understood as laying down an absolute proposition of law that the police cannot file chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. It appears that in Pratik Thakkar , the case of the prosecution was not one of murder, but one of an act alleged to have been committed by the accused persons with the knowledge that the same would cause death i.e. an act falling within Section 299 of the I.P.C. The case of Pratik Thakkar did not travel beyond Section 299 I.P.C. 31. In the cases of vehicular accidents, it is always open for the police to file chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. provided a case in that regard is made out. In the cases of vehicular accidents, it is always open for the police to file chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. provided a case in that regard is made out. The police, over a period of time, has been filing chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. in all cases of vehicular accidents. This is so because the police is of the view that whenever a vehicle is driven at high speed, the driver of the vehicle has the knowledge that the same may lead to a fatal accident. The Investigating Officer may be justified to chargesheet the driver of a vehicle under Section 304 of the I.P.C. if there are materials to show that that the rashness or negligence shown by the accused while using the vehicle on a public road was such that he could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause death of the victim or to cause bodily injury to him, which was likely to cause his/her death. KINDS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND ITS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS 32. Homicide is the killing of a human being by a human being. It is either lawful or unlawful. Culpable Homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide. It is the causing of death by doing: (i) An act with the intention of causing death. (ii) An act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (iii) An act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Without one or other of those elements, an act, though it may be in its nature criminal and may occasion death, will not amount to the offence of Culpable Homicide. It must be noted that this Section defines culpable homicide simpliciter. The scheme of the code is that first the genus, "culpable homicide" is defined and then "murder", which is a species of culpable homicide, is defined [Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) AIR SC 3802]. Culpable homicide is genus whereas murder is species. All murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are not murders [Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., (2013) 1 Crimes(SC) 407]. Culpable homicide is genus whereas murder is species. All murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are not murders [Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., (2013) 1 Crimes(SC) 407]. What is left out of culpable homicide after the special characteristics of murder have been taken away from it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Rampal Sigh v. State of U.P., (2013) 1 Crimes(SC) 407]. 33. The main qualifiers for the culpable homicide is causing of death by doing an act with the intention, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Without one or other of those elements, an act, though it may be in criminal nature, will not amount to the offence of culpable homicide. The essential elements of Culpable Homicide are: (1) Causing Death (2) Death must be done by: Doing an Act With The Intention Of Causing Death With The Intention Of Causing Such Bodily Injury as is likely to cause death With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Unless one of the mental states mentioned in the ingredient is present, an act causing death cannot amount to Culpable Homicide [Alister Anthony Pareira ]. UNDERSTANDING MURDER AND ITS ELEMENTS: 34. "Culpable homicide" is genus and "Murder" its species wherein all murder is culpable homicide but not vice versa so. Every act which falls within one or more of the four clauses of Section 300 is murder, and also falls within the definition of culpable homicide in Section 299 of Indian Penal Code. Exceptions 1 to 5 to Section 300 indicate circumstances where culpable homicide is not murder [Verran v. State of M.P., (2011) 11 SCC 367 ]. Murder is defined under Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The essential elements of murder are: (1) The intention to cause death, (2) Intention to cause such bodily injury knowing that the injury caused is likely to cause death. (3) Intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (4) Knowledge about the act that it is so imminently dangerous and in all probability it will cause death. (3) Intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (4) Knowledge about the act that it is so imminently dangerous and in all probability it will cause death. From the bare perusal of the Section discussed above, the four clauses under the Section provide the essential ingredients wherein culpable homicide amounts to murder. But the Section also provides five exceptional situations. We can say that if the cases fall under these exceptions then it will be considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If any of the exception qualifies then the murder converts into culpable homicide. These exceptions provided under Section 300 are: (1) Grave and sudden provocation (2) Private defense (3) Act of public servant (4) Sudden fight (5) Consent. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION 35. One must keep in mind the distinction between knowledge and intention. Knowledge in the context of Section 299 would, mean notice or realization or understanding. The distinction between the terms 'knowledge' and 'intention' again is a difference of degrees. An inference of knowledge that it is likely to cause death must be arrived at keeping in view the fact situation obtaining in each case. The accused must be aware of the consequences of his act. In the case of [Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753 ], it was observed that knowledge denotes a bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which the human mind might itself remain supine or inactive whereas intention connotes a conscious state in which mental faculties are roused into activity and summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and specific end which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself. Kenny defines 'Intention' as to intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a desired objective, the noun 'intention' in the present connection is used to denote the state of mind of a man who not only foresees but also desires the possible consequences of his conduct. So, there cannot be intention unless there is also foresight, since a man must decide to his own satisfaction, and accordingly must foresee, that to which his express purpose is directed. So, there cannot be intention unless there is also foresight, since a man must decide to his own satisfaction, and accordingly must foresee, that to which his express purpose is directed. Whereas Russell on Crime has observed "In the present analysis of the mental element in crime the word 'intention' is used to denote the mental attitude of a man who has resolved to bring about a certain result if he can possibly do so. He shapes his line of conduct so as to achieve a particular end at which he aims." It can thus be seen that the 'knowledge' as contrasted with 'intention' signifies a state of mental realization with the bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive. This was discussed extensively in [Jail Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration, (1991) 2 SCC 32 ] stating: "We may note at this state that 'intention' is different from 'motive' or 'ignorance' or 'negligence'. It is the 'knowledge' or 'intention' with which the act is done that makes difference, in arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. Therefore, it is necessary to know the meaning of these expressions as used in these provisions. The 'intention' and 'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind and their existence has to be gathered from the circumstances, such as the, weapon used, the ferocity of attack, multiplicity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the code designedly used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and it is accepted that the knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention that such consequences should ensue. As compared to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end." 36. Detailed COMPARISON OF SECTION 299 AND SECTION 300 OF THE IPC: (a) Clause (a) of Section 299 corresponds with Clause (1) of Section 300. As compared to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end." 36. Detailed COMPARISON OF SECTION 299 AND SECTION 300 OF THE IPC: (a) Clause (a) of Section 299 corresponds with Clause (1) of Section 300. (b) Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with Clause (2) and (3) of Section 300, and (c) Clause (c) of Section 299 corresponds with Clause (4) of Section 300. The words italicized mark the differences between culpable homicide and murder. Thus "Except in the cases hereinafter expected" - Section 300 begins with the words "except in the cases hereinafter expected, culpable homicide is not murder if the case falls within any of the exceptions mentioned in Section 300 [Reg. Gorabehand Gope, 5 W.R. 45 (F.B.) per Peacock C.J.]. (1) Intention to kill: Clause (a) of Section 299 and Clause (1) of Section 300 - The causing of death by doing an act with the intention of causing death is culpable homicide. It is also murder, unless the case falls within one of the exceptions in Section 300 [Ibid]. (2) Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death: Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (2) of Section 300 - The essence of Clause (2) of Section 300 is to be found in the knowledge that the person harmed is likely to die. "The offence is murder if the offender knows that the particular person injured is likely either from peculiarity of Constitution or immature age, or other special circumstances, to be killed by an injury which would not ordinarily cause death [Illustration (b)]. The Section illustrates this 14 by supposing the case of a person striking a blow is likely to cause his death of which the former has knowledge. The clause is intended to meet cases of enlarged liver and spleen, which may be easily ruptured by a blow of no great violence, in which case the degree of criminality depends upon its knowledge. Clause (b) above of Section 299 postulates no such knowledge. The clause is intended to meet cases of enlarged liver and spleen, which may be easily ruptured by a blow of no great violence, in which case the degree of criminality depends upon its knowledge. Clause (b) above of Section 299 postulates no such knowledge. (3)Intention to cause bodily Injury likely to cause death: Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300- The offence is culpable homicide if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death: it is murder, if such injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine, but appreciable. The word "likely" means "probably", it is distinguished from "possibly". When the chances of a thing happening are even with or greater than, its not happening, we say that the thing will "probably happen. When the chances of its happening are very high, we say that it will 'most probably' happen. An injury "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" merely means that death will be the 'most probable" result of the injury having regard to ordinary course of nature. The expression does not mean that death must result in which such an injury is caused. Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 thus appear to be correlated, and the question whether the causing of an injury is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of the likelihood or probabilities of death in consequence of the injury. "Practically", observed Melvill. J., "it will generally resolve itself into a consideration of the nature of the weapon used. A blow from the fist or stick on a vital part may be likely to cause death: a wound from a sword in a vital part is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death." It may be pointed out however, that it is not so much the nature of the weapon used as the nature of the injury inflicted that would determine the difference here made. The weapon may be same, but it may cause injuries of different proportions. It depends upon the constitution of the man, the part of the body injured and the degree of violence used. The weapon may be same, but it may cause injuries of different proportions. It depends upon the constitution of the man, the part of the body injured and the degree of violence used. In the instant case the question was whether the appellant could be said to have caused the death, when the immediate cause of death was some pulmonary embolism in left lung, infection and shock and obstruction in circulation of blood in artery. The Court observed in most cases, even if the fatal wounds are inflicted, the wounds themselves are not the immediate cause of death in the medical sense. But, even in such cases death must be attributed to the fatal injuries which lead to death. In order that a person should be held responsible for having caused the death, it is not necessary that this cause is the immediate cause of death, in the medical sense. If P causes to Q injuries likely to cause death, and as a result of such injuries it is necessary to perform an operation on Q, the injured man, and the injured man dies as a cumulative result of the original injuries as well as the operation, P must be deemed to have caused death of Q, because the operation itself was necessitated by what he had done, and therefore he must be held to be the cause of the operation itself and the consequential death [Kumbha Narsi Bechar v. State, (1962) AIR Gujarat 77 at p.78]. (4) Difference between Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300 - Clause (3) of Section 300 contemplates an injury caused to a normal grown-up human being and does not take account of the special physical condition of the person harmed accelerating his death. On the other hand, Clause (2) of the Section refers to the case of a person with a peculiar physical condition and to the accused having knowledge of that peculiarity. (5) Knowledge, homicidal and murderous: Clause (c) of Section 299 and Clause (4) of Section 300- Clause (c) of Section 299 and Cl. (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. Clause (4) of Section 300 requires the knowledge in a very high degree of probability. (5) Knowledge, homicidal and murderous: Clause (c) of Section 299 and Clause (4) of Section 300- Clause (c) of Section 299 and Cl. (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. Clause (4) of Section 300 requires the knowledge in a very high degree of probability. The following factors are necessary: (1) That the act is imminently dangerous (2) That in all probability it will cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; and (3) That the act is done without any excuse for incurring the risk. Clause (4) of Section 300 is not intended to apply to cases in which a person intends to inflict an injury likely to cause death because the Section speaks of knowledge and not the intention of an injury likely to cause death. Usually it applies to cases in which there was no intention of causing death or of causing any bodily injury. 37. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a Court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Section 299 is applicable. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated is Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Penal Code. [See : State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu, (1977) AIR SC 45]. 38. Thus, in an appropriate case, the Investigating Officer will be justified invoking the Section 304 of the I.P.C. and file the chargesheet accordingly. It cannot be said that Section 304 of the I.P.C. can be invoked only by the accused while trying to bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the I.P.C. In such circumstances, the decision of this Court in the case of Rayavarapu Punnayya referred to above is per incuriam, as it does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 39. The second question that falls for my consideration is whether, in the case on hand, the Investigating Officer is justified in filing chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. What is rash and negligent driving has been very succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajashtan, (2012) 9 SCC 284 . I may quote the relevant observations of the Supreme Court as under: "RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING: "Rash and negligent" driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to rash and negligent driving within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to rash and negligent driving within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is attracted. "Negligence" means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence. The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., reasonable care in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happen to be children of tender years. It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others. The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others. The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record. The Act itself contains a provision which concerns with the consequences of driving dangerously alike the provision in the IPC that the vehicle is driven in a manner dangerous to public life. Where a person does such an offence he is punished as per the provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts have also taken the concept of culpable rashness and culpable negligence into consideration in cases of road accidents. Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a case the mere fact of accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. This maxim suggests that on the circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, shows that the act is attributable to some persons negligent conduct. [Ref. Justice Rajesh Tandons An Exhaustive Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (First Edition, 2010]. [Ref. Justice Rajesh Tandons An Exhaustive Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (First Edition, 2010]. We have noticed these principles in order to examine the questions raised in the present case in their correct perspective. We may notice that certain doctrines falling in the realm of accidental civil or tortuous jurisprudence, are quite applicable to the cases falling under criminal jurisprudence like the present one. Now, we may refer to some judgments of this Court which would provide guidance for determinatively answering such questions. In the case of Alister Anthony Pareira where the driver of a vehicle was driving the vehicle at a high speed at late hours of the night in a drunken state and killed seven labourers sleeping on the pavement, injuring other eight, this Court dismissing the appeal, laid down the tests to determine criminal culpability on the basis of knowledge, as follows : 41. Rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. As a matter of law-in view of the provisions of IPC the cases which fall within the last clause of Section 299 but not within clause Fourthly of Section 300 may cover the cases of rash or negligent act done with the knowledge of the likelihood of its dangerous consequences and may entail punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC. Section 304-A IPC takes out of its ambit the cases of death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act amounting to culpable homicide of either description. Again, in the case of Naresh Giri v. State of M.P., (2008) 1 SCC 791 , where a train had hit a bus being driven by the appellant at the railway crossing and the bus was badly damaged and two persons died, this Court, while altering the charges from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-A IPC, observed : 7. Again, in the case of Naresh Giri v. State of M.P., (2008) 1 SCC 791 , where a train had hit a bus being driven by the appellant at the railway crossing and the bus was badly damaged and two persons died, this Court, while altering the charges from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-A IPC, observed : 7. Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. Section 304-A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. 8. Section 304-A carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under Section 300. If a person wilfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable homicide. When intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, Section 304-A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence; a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304-A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practise such rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor. 9. What constitutes negligence has been analysed in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol. 34, Para 1 (p. 3), as follows: 1. General principles of the law of negligence. Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger; the fact that the act of the defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is also injured by the same act to claim unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent, although in other circumstances it will not do so. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent, although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two. * * * 13. According to the dictionary meaning reckless means careless, regardless or heedless of the possible harmful consequences of one's acts. It presupposes that if thought was given to the matter by the doer before the act was done, it would have been apparent to him that there was a real risk of its having the relevant harmful consequences; but, granted this, recklessness covers a whole range of states of mind from failing to give any thought at all to whether or not there is any risk of those harmful consequences, to recognising the existence of the risk and nevertheless deciding to ignore it. 45. In the case of Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P., (2000) 7 SCC 72 , wherein the appellant was driving a bus and while a passenger was boarding the bus, the bus was driven which resulted in the fall of the passenger and the rear wheel of the bus ran over the passenger. This Court, drawing the distinction between a rash act and a negligent act held that it was culpable rashness and criminal negligence and held as under : "7. It is a wrong proposition that for any motor accident negligence of the driver should be presumed. An accident of such a nature as would prima facie show that it cannot be accounted to anything other than the negligence of the driver of the vehicle may create a presumption and in such a case the driver has to explain how the accident happened without negligence on his part. Merely because a passenger fell down from the bus while boarding the bus, no presumption of negligence can be drawn against the driver of the bus. * * * 9. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. * * * 9. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution." 40. Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: "304A. Causing death by negligence - 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." 41. To answer the question posed by me, Section 304-A would have to be read along with Section 299 which defines culpable homicide and Section 300 which enumerates the circumstances in which culpable homicide may amount to murder. Section 299 and clause fourthly of Section 300 which are relevant for our purpose are reproduced below: "299. Culpable homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide." "300. Murder - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or 2ndly.***** 3rdly.-***** 4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." 42. It will be evident from a reading of the second part of Section 299 and clause 4thly of Section 300 that they do not talk about 'intention' but make reference to the fact that a person committing such an act must have the knowledge that he could cause death or bodily injury. The two sections, however, differ in one material aspect inasmuch that while Section 299 visualises that death was likely to be caused by a particular act. Section 300 presupposes (inter-alia) that the act committed was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or is likely to cause death. It is, therefore, the nature of the act, which would bring the matter within either Section 299 or Section 300. This distinction has been clearly brought about in Queen v. Gora Chand Gopee and Others,1866 WRC 45 and by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Prasad, (1968) AIR SC 881. In this case, Ram Prasad had quarrelled with his mistress Mst. Rajji and in the heat of moment had poured kerosene oil on her and set her alight. The trial Court acquitted him of the charge of murder and convicted him for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court in appeal set aside the judgment of the trial Court and convicted him under Section 304-II. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the State and while discussing clause fourthly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, it was observed that Ram Prasad's act was covered by that clause and convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by holding:- "Although clause fourthly is usually invoked in those cases where there is no intention to cause the death of any particular person (as the illustration shows) the clause may on its terms be used in those cases where there is such callousness towards the result and the risk taken is such that it may be stated that the person knows that the act is likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." 43. The above observations clearly underline the view that it would be the nature of act that would determine the gravity and nature of the offence. 44. The above observations clearly underline the view that it would be the nature of act that would determine the gravity and nature of the offence. 44. Equally relevant are the observations of Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Gurdev Singh Sardar Puran Singh v. Emperor, (1941) AIR Lahore 459. In this case the accused was driving a lorry down the Grand Trunk Road from Delhi northwards in the direction of Panipat. He was signalled to stop by a police officer but instead of doing so, attempted to get away and drove along the G.T. Road at a speed of 50 or 55 miles an hour. As the lorry came near a culvert, a young girl, who was crossing the road was run over and killed. Although the Division Bench held that the facts made out a case of rash and negligent driving punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code yet the observations are extremely relevant in the context of this discussion: "The appellant was driving fast on a public highway and while there is no doubt he was driving a heavy vehicle at great speed it cannot be said that he knew that by driving at that pace on an open road in the country he was likely to cause death. The child who has killed came from the side of the road and attempted to cross in front of the lorry. It is true that if the lorry had not been driven at this great speed the driver could have avoided the accident and he certainly caused the death of the child by his rash and negligent driving. To say, ,however, that he must have known that such an accident was bound to occur, and therefore, he was likely to cause death, is putting an interpretation upon the facts which they cannot bear. It is possible that the driving of a heavy vehicle at high speed in a crowded place like a city might result in charge under Section 304, or even under Section 301, Penal Code, but it would be impossible under the circumstances of this case to bring the offence under either of these sections. We think that the offence clearly comes within Section 304-A, Penal Code, as the appellant under all the circumstances of the case has certainly committed a rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. We think that the offence clearly comes within Section 304-A, Penal Code, as the appellant under all the circumstances of the case has certainly committed a rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. We, therefore, set aside the conviction under Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentence of death, and convict Gurdev Singh appellant under Section 304-A, Penal Code, and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment of 18 months". 45. A bare perusal of these two provisions clearly reveals that they deal with the mental state or mens rea of the accused-person. While Section 304 IPC requires the existence of "intention or knowledge", Section 304A IPC requires the existence of "rashness or negligence". Therefore, it is imperative to understand the ambit and extent of the words "intention", "knowledge", "rashness" and "negligence". 46. Intention is doing of an act with the aim of achieving a particular purpose, or end, or consequence. Knowledge is the awareness of the consequences when an act is done in a particular manner. The words "intention" and "knowledge" have been an integral part of the criminal statutes. However, the words "negligence" and "rashness" have been transplanted into the criminal arena from the law of Torts. According to the law of Torts, every person owes a duty towards his neighbor or towards his immediate surrounding to ensure that no harm or damage is done to the neighbor or the surrounding. When this duty is breached by an act, of which the doer is unaware of the consequences, he is said to have committed a negligent act. 47. Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition) Volume 34 paragraph 1 (para 3) defines the words "what constitutes negligence" as under : "Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence, where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence, where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger, the fact that the act of the defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is also injured by the same act to claim unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two". 48. Though the term "negligence" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code, it may be stated that negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do. 49. In the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Anr., (2005) 6 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguishes between the concept of negligence in civil and criminal law. It observed as under : "What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. Generally speaking, it is the amount of damages incurred which is determinative of the extent of liability in tort; but in criminal law it is not the determinative of liability. To fasten liability in criminal law, the degree of negligence has to be higher than that of negligence enough to fasten liability for damages in civil law i.e. gross of a very high degree. To fasten liability in criminal law, the degree of negligence has to be higher than that of negligence enough to fasten liability for damages in civil law i.e. gross of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution. While negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do; criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. A clear distinction exists between "simple lack of care" incurring civil liability and "very high degree of negligence" which is required in criminal cases." 50. "Rashness", on the other hand, consists of doing an act where the doer knows the consequences of his act, but hopes that the consequences would not follow. The word "rashness" has also not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, in the case of Empress v. Idu Beg, 1881 3 ILR(All) 776, Straight, J. made the following observation with regard to criminal rashness. His Lordship observed as under : "Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. 51. These observations have been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of U.P. and Anr., (2009) AIR SC 125. 16. 51. These observations have been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of U.P. and Anr., (2009) AIR SC 125. 16. Thus, the distinction between the "rashness" and "negligence" is that while in the former, the doer knows about the consequences, but in the latter, the doer is unaware of the consequences. 52. Undoubtedly, "rashness" does contain an element of knowledge. But a distinction has to be made between Section 304 IPC, requiring knowledge, with regard to the consequences of the act and Section 304A IPC, "rashness", having an element of knowledge about the consequences, but with the hope that the consequences would not follow. In the case of Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2007) 9 JT 346 : ( AIR 2007 SC 2376 ), the Apex Court had analysed the ingredients of Section 304A IPC as under : 5. Section 304A speaks of causing death by negligence. This section applies to rash and negligence acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This section obviously does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, (sic) of which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1937) AC 576 observed as under : "Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established. Probably of all the epithets that can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly covers the case. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established. Probably of all the epithets that can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to visualize a case of death caused by reckless driving in the connotation of that term in ordinary speech which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter; but it is probably not all embracing, for 'recklessness' suggests an indifference to risk whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree of negligence as would justify a conviction." 6. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. 7. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. 7. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. 8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway J. in these words: "Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In re: Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. H.C.R. 119). 53. Similarly in the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik the Supreme Court has dealt with the distinction between these two provisions. The Apex Court has held as under : The section deals with homicidal death by rash or negligent act. It does not create a new offence. It is directed against the offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300, IPC and covers those cases where death has been caused without 'intention' and 'knowledge'. The words "not amounting to culpable homicide" in the provision are significant and clearly convey that the section seeks to embrace those cases where there is neither intention to cause death, nor knowledge that the act done will in all probability result into death. It applies to acts which are rash or negligent and are directly the causes of death of another person. There is thus a fine distinction between Section 304 and Section 304A. It applies to acts which are rash or negligent and are directly the causes of death of another person. There is thus a fine distinction between Section 304 and Section 304A. Section 304A carves out cases where death is caused by doing a rash and negligent act which does not amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder within the meaning of Section 299 or culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 300, IPC. In other words, Section 304A excludes all the ingredients of Section 299 as also of Section 300. Where intention or knowledge is the 'motivating force' of the act complained of, Section 304A will have to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or amounting to murder as the facts disclose. The Section has application to those cases where there is neither intention to cause death nor knowledge that the act in all probability will cause death. 54. Furthermore, in order to understand the distinction between Sections 304 and 304A IPC, it is pertinent to note that while the former Section deals with an act 'amounting to culpable homicide', the latter Section deals with an act 'not amounting to culpable homicide'. Therefore, lets first turn to the definition of 'culpable homicide' as contain in Section 299 IPC. 55. Section 299 IPC along with the illustrations reads as under : "299 Culpable homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Illustrations (a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death." 56. A bare perusal of illustrations clearly reveals that Illustrations "A and B" talk about a conscious act done by a person with the intention or with the knowledge that by such an act he is likely to cause a death of a person. Illustration "C" does not deal with a conscious act to cause the death of a human being. According to Illustration "C", the intention is to do a particular act, by which death of a human being would not be caused. But unfortunately, death of a man still ensues. According to Illustration "C" causing of such a death does "not amounting to a culpable homicide". Section 304A IPC deals with causing of death "not amounting to culpable homicide". Therefore, Illustration "C" would have to be read in the context of Section 304A IPC. 57. In the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik, the Supreme Court has laid down the test of "motivating force". Therefore, the Court is required to see what was the "motivating force" in the mind of the accused when the accident occurred? 58. Although "rashness" does contain an element of "knowledge", even then the case would not fall within the ambit of Section 304 IPC. For, in Section 304 IPC, the knowledge is about the consequences as the consequences would naturally and obviously follow from the nature of the act. But in "rashness" although there is a knowledge that the consequences may follow or are likely to follow, but the doer hopes that the consequences would not follow. For, in Section 304 IPC, the knowledge is about the consequences as the consequences would naturally and obviously follow from the nature of the act. But in "rashness" although there is a knowledge that the consequences may follow or are likely to follow, but the doer hopes that the consequences would not follow. Thus, even if the element of knowledge is common in Section 304 and Section 304A IPC, the extent and ambit of "knowledge" defers in its nature. Therefore, the element of "knowledge" should not lead to any confusion between the scope of Section 304 IPC and scope of Section 304A IPC. 59. Let me proceed on the footing for the time being that the vehicle was being driven by the accused at a high speed. The same, by itself, would not be sufficient to impute knowledge for the purpose of attracting Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 60. In State of Karnataka vs. Satish, (1998) SCC(Criminal) 1508, the Supreme Court was faced with the similar situation. The Court observed as under: "4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high-speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself." 61. The expression "high speed" could range from 30 kms per hour to over 100 kms per hour. Even while driving at slow speed, the driving may be rash or negligent. Therefore, to say that as the accused was driving his vehicle at high speed, he could be said to be very rash and negligent and sufficient enough to impute knowledge of causing death is not the correct way of looking at the matter. It is pointed out by Ms. Thakkar, the learned A.P.P. that the prescribed speed limit on the road of the accident is maximum 60 kms. per hour, whereas the applicant was driving his car at the speed of 86 kms. per hour. What would have been the position if the very same accident would have occurred while the applicant was driving his car at the speed of 50 kms. or 60 kms. i.e. well within the prescribed speed limit. Would it have made any difference? Even while driving the car within the prescribed speed limit, if the act is found to be rash or negligent, then the driver can be prosecuted. or 60 kms. i.e. well within the prescribed speed limit. Would it have made any difference? Even while driving the car within the prescribed speed limit, if the act is found to be rash or negligent, then the driver can be prosecuted. It would have been altogether a different matter if there would be any evidence on record to indicate that while he was driving his vehicle at high speed, while he was talking with someone on his mobile or he was dead drunk or he knew that his vehicle is not in a good condition or the brakes of the vehicle are not in good condition. In such circumstances, probably, the police may be justified in filing chargesheet and prosecuting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. It is very unfortunate that a young girl lost her life. However, the manner in which, the accident occurred, in my view, does not attract Section 304 of the I.P.C. 62. I am not impressed by the submission of the learned A.P.P. that the Investigating Agency is justified in filing the chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. because whether the death was caused due to rashness or negligence alone or there was any other element of culpability on the part of the accused in refusing to maintain the care and caution expected of him in the given situation are all matters which will fall within the realm of questions of fact, and therefore, they are matters for evidence in the trial. I am not impressed because framing of charges is a serious legal exercise. More over, the accused has to be informed the exact case which he is likely to face and which he is required to make out. Therefore, the charges have to be framed as clearly as possible. They cannot be framed vaguely. Thus, the Trial Court was duty bound to consider the parameters of the provisions of law and see under which Section the offence is committed. Section 304 of the I.P.C., in cases of vehicular accidents, should not be invoked by way of punishment or with the idea in the mind that it is necessary to curb the menace of the vehicular accidents which are on increase day by day. 63. Section 304 of the I.P.C., in cases of vehicular accidents, should not be invoked by way of punishment or with the idea in the mind that it is necessary to curb the menace of the vehicular accidents which are on increase day by day. 63. The above takes me to consider the two decisions of the Supreme Court on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned A.P.P. 64. In Alister Pareira, the facts were very gross. On the fateful night, when a number of labourers were asleep on the pavement, a car, which Alister was driving, ran over the pavement killing seven persons and causing injuries to eight other persons. Alister was, at that time, found to be in a drunken condition. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 304-A and 337 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 5 Lac for the former offence, and fifteen days simple imprisonment for the latter. However, Alister came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II and 338 of the I.P.C. The High Court set aside the acquittal of Alister under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part II, 338 and 337 of the I.P.C. Alister questioned the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court. The questions that arose before the Supreme Court were : (1) whether the conviction of Alister under Sections 304, 338 and 337 was not sustainable as he was charged only under Sections 304 Part II and 338 only, (2) whether the charges under Section 304 Part II and Section 338 were mutually destructive and could not coexist in respect of a single rash or negligent act, (3) whether by not charging the appellant for "drunken condition" and not putting to him the entire incriminating evidence led in by the prosecution, his trial and conviction stood vitiated. 65. Thus, the case of Alister Pareira was one of driving the vehicle in a drunken condition. If the driver of a vehicle is dead drunk and still he takes on the wheels it could definitely be said that he had the requisite knowledge that he was likely to cause the death of a person on the road. 66. 65. Thus, the case of Alister Pareira was one of driving the vehicle in a drunken condition. If the driver of a vehicle is dead drunk and still he takes on the wheels it could definitely be said that he had the requisite knowledge that he was likely to cause the death of a person on the road. 66. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salimkhan & Another., had the occasion to consider an identical issue. In the said case, the respondent was originally charged of an offence punishable under section 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427, IPC and section 134(a)(b) read with sections 181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 as also under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. All these offences are triable by a court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. The charge-sheet, at a later stage, came to be modified based on the additional statement of the complainant, and instead of section 304-A, IPC, section 304, Part II, IPC was substituted which is an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The learned Magistrate, who had taken cognizance of the offence, committed the said case to the Court of Session for trial. On the framing of the charge under section 304, Part II, IPC, the accused filed Criminal Application No.463 of 2003 in the Court of Session alleging that the facts as narrated in the complaint did not constitute an offence punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC and if at all, only a charge for an offence punishable under section 304-A could be framed against him, apart from other offences triable by the Court of Magistrate. The said application came to be rejected by the Sessions Court and the Sessions Judge, thereafter, proceeded to frame charges, one of which, was for an offence punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC. 67. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his application and the consequential framing of charge under section 304, Part II, IPC, the accused preferred a criminal application under section 482 of the Code before the Criminal Appellate Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 67. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his application and the consequential framing of charge under section 304, Part II, IPC, the accused preferred a criminal application under section 482 of the Code before the Criminal Appellate Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court allowed the said application and quashed the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge framing charge under section 304, Part II, IPC against the accused while it maintained the other charges and directed the Magistrate to frame de novo charges under various sections including one under section 304-A, IPC. 36. The State of Maharashtra, feeling dissatisfied, filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court and challenged the order passed by the High Court. The Supreme Court made the following observations: Mr. Harish N Salve, learned senior counsel representing the respondentaccused, per contra, contended that from a plain reading of the complaint which is the only material available at this stage for the purpose of framing charges, no reasonable person could ever have come to the conclusion that the respondent ever had any knowledge that by his act of driving the motor vehicle, he would cause such an act which would lead to the death of any person. He further submitted that from the material on record itself it is clear that if at all any act of the respondent is responsible for the death of the victim same cannot be termed anything other than a rash and negligent act punishable under section 304A. Learned senior counsel further submitted that since the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application of the petitioner filed before it in altering the charge from section 304 Part II to 304A, IPC, had itself passed a lengthy order which indicated that the said court had formed a conclusive opinion as to the nature of offence which definitely would have prejudiced the case of the respondent in the trial, the High Court was left with no choice but to decide this question as to the nature of offence if at all committed by the respondent. But for the fact that two courts below i.e. the Sessions Court and the High Court having gone into this issue at length and having expressed almost a conclusive opinion as to the nature of offence, we would not have interfered with the impugned order of the High Court because, as stated above, neither of the sides would have been in any manner prejudiced in the trial by framing of a charge either under section 304A or section 304 Part II, IPC except for the fact that the forum trying the charge might have been different, which by itself, in our opinion, would not cause any prejudice. This is because at any stage of the trial it would have been open to the concerned court to have altered the charge appropriately depending on the material that is brought before it in the form of evidence. But now by virtue of the impugned judgment of the High Court even if in the course of the trial the Magistrate were to come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to charge the respondent for a more serious offence than the one punishable under section 304A, it will not be possible for it to pass appropriate order. To that extent the prosecution case gets preempted. We are of the opinion that though it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under section 482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. By relying upon the decisions of the apex Court most of which were with reference to appeals arising out of convictions, we think the High Court was not justified in this case in giving a finding as to the non-existence of material to frame a charge for an offence punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC, therefore, so far as the finding given by the High Court is concerned, we are satisfied that it is too premature a finding and ought not to have been given at this stage. At the same time we are also in agreement with the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that even the Sessions Court ought not to have expressed its views in such certain terms which indicates that the Sessions Court had taken a final decision in regard to the material to establish a charge punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the findings in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the material to frame a charge punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC of both the courts below should be set aside and it should be left to be decided by the court trying the offence to alter or modify any such charge at an appropriate stage based on material produced by way of evidence. The next question which then requires our consideration is whether in view of our above finding, the charge framed by the Sessions Judge for an offence punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC be sustained or one under section 304A as has been done by the High Court, should be retained ? We have been informed that pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, has already framed fresh charges under section 304A and other provisions mentioned hereinabove and the trial has commenced. We have been informed that pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, has already framed fresh charges under section 304A and other provisions mentioned hereinabove and the trial has commenced. Since any interference at this stage would not further the cause of justice and would lead only to delay the course of justice, we think it appropriate that the proceedings before the said Magistrates Court should continue and the trial should proceed on the basis of the charges framed by it but we make it very clear that at any appropriate stage if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to charge the respondent for a more serious offence than the one punishable under section 304A, he shall proceed to do so without in any manner being hindered or influenced by the observations or findings of the High Court in the impugned order or by the order of the Sessions Court which framed the charge punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC. Such decision of the Magistrate shall be purely based on the material brought in evidence at the trial. 68. The issue before the Supreme Court in the afore-noted case was whether the accused should face the trial for the offence under Section 304, Part-II IPC or Section 304A IPC. The Supreme Court took the view that such issues should be left best to the trial Court to decide and the Sessions Court or the High Court should not undertake such exercise. In my view, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Salman Salimkhan should not be applied as a straight jacket formula. The Court is obliged to consider the facts of each case and decide whether the case is one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or rash and negligent act. 69. The case on hand is not one in which a very gross or a particular act with a motivating force can be attributed to the applicant accused so as to bring his case within the purview of Section 304 of the I.P.C. The entire case of the prosecution is on the basis of rash and negligent driving. To put it in other words, driving the vehicle at high speed. 70. Mr. To put it in other words, driving the vehicle at high speed. 70. Mr. Raju, in the course of his submissions, expressed grave concern over the issue of carelessness about observing basic safety rules like wearing helmet or seat belt. Mr. Raju submitted that if the rider of the motorcycle as well as the pillion rider i.e. the deceased would have worn helmet, then, probably, the life could have been saved. This hardly is an argument for the purpose of deciding whether the case is one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or rash and negligent act. If the injured or the deceased, who meets with an accident, had not worn a helmet, the same would not absolve the accused from the crime. To put it in other words, it cannot be argued that if the deceased would have put on a helmet, then the life would not have been lost. However, wearing helmet has become an order of the day. The "Times of India", in its Ahmedabad edition, dated 15th October 2018, has published an article highlighting that 40% road deaths in Gujarat were caused by neglecting the basic safety rules. The article reads as under: "More than 40% of those killed in Gujarat's road accidents last year were individuals who didn't give two hoots about observing basic safety rules like wearing hellmets or seat belts. The latest Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways report 'Road Accidents in India 2017' claimed that the largest share of road fatalities in Gujarat, when compared to other states, was because citizens here refuse to wear helmets and seat belts. Gujarat reported five fatalities daily owing to avoidance of helmets alone. Last year of the total 7,289 road fatalities reported in Gujarat, 40.2% or 2,930 lives were lost for not wearing helmets or seat belts. The situation in Gujarat was worse than Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka, in terms of percentage share of deaths caused due to non-observance of safety rules, even as all these states had reported more than 10,000 deaths. Gujarat was the only state in the country where more pillion riders (1,326) died for not wearing helmets than those who rode the two-wheeler (586). In case of four-wheelers, 480 drivers and 536 co-passengers were killed because they didn't wear seat belts, said the report. Gujarat was the only state in the country where more pillion riders (1,326) died for not wearing helmets than those who rode the two-wheeler (586). In case of four-wheelers, 480 drivers and 536 co-passengers were killed because they didn't wear seat belts, said the report. While-state-wide data is not available, Ahmedabad traffic police had fined an average 3,000 Amdavadis or two citizens per minute for not wearing helmets in the year 2017. The citizens were issued a challans for Rs. 20.74 crore for not wearing helmets - more than all other offences combined. Over a decade ago, the Gujarat High Court had asked the state government (to make helmets compulsory for two-wheeler riders." In one another article published by the Times of India, Ahmedabad edition, dated October 16, 2018, it has been reported that in the city of Rajkot, only three out of hundred follow the helmet rules. The report reads as under: "Helmet rule violation was the maximum in Gujarat's Rajkot where only three in every hundred two-wheeler-riders were found wearing the headgear while in Mumbai and Kochi 93% were spotted wearing helmets, a recent study carried out in 32 cities across eight states found. The findings are based on field surveys by IIT-Delhi, DIMTS and TERI as a part of an audit conducted for the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety. "We are strictly implementing the law educating people about the importance of wearing helmet. We prepared special garbas in Navratri to spread the message of traffic rules. We also have an advisory committee in which some prominent citizens are members who are advising us on how to encourage people to wear helmet, as chances of head injuries reduce by 30% in case of accidents. We are also doing education, seminars in colleges encouraging youngsters to wear helmet." Manoj Agrawal, police commissioner, Rajkot. The states covered in the study were UP, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab. According to the findings, Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat and Rajkot had high rate of helmet and seatbelt violations followed by three cities of Karnataka - Mysuru, Hubli and Kalaburagi." 71. What has been highlighted in the two articles referred to above published by "The Times of India" is something very important, serious and a matter of concern. People should pay heed to what has been pointed out in the two articles. 72. What has been highlighted in the two articles referred to above published by "The Times of India" is something very important, serious and a matter of concern. People should pay heed to what has been pointed out in the two articles. 72. In the overall view of the matter, I have reached to the conclusion that the Court below committed an error in rejecting the discharge application so far as the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. is concerned. The impugned order passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, in-charge, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exhibit : 4 is hereby quashed. The Exhibit : 4 filed by the applicant herein in the Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 is hereby allowed. The applicant stands discharged from the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. 73. In view of the order passed by this Court, the 8th Additional Sessions Judge at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural), in-charge of the Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 shall now pass an appropriate order sending the case back to the committal Court, as the other offences including Section 304A of the I.P.C. would be a magistrate triable offence.