Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 689 (MP)

Aman Anand Tyagi v. State of M. P.

2019-09-24

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Case diary is available. 2. The applicant has filed this first bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 315/2019 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior in relation to the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304 of IPC. 4. As per prosecution story, on 9.9.2019 about 10:00 PM while\ driving bullet motor-cycle bearing Registration No. MP07-MB-9373 rashly and negligently, the applicant dashed Anushka Banshkar aged about 8 years who sustained injuries on his back and stomach which led to her death. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a student and young boy of 20 years. The offence under section 304 of IPC is not attracted in the facts of the present case as the applicant had neither any intention to cause death of the deceased nor he can be fastened with knowledge necessary to constitute the offence under section 304 of IPC. Inasmuch as one cow suddenly came in between the road and dashed the present applicant, the incident occurred. Therefore, at the most, offence under section 304-A of IPC is made out, which is bailable in nature. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. If he is kept in custody with hardened criminals, his career will be ruined. Hence, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and submitted that the motor-cycle driven by the applicant was modified without permission of R.T.O. The offence is committed in the manner from which it is gathered that the applicant was having knowledge that his act might cause death of someone, which is covered under section 299 of IPC, which says, whoever causes death by doing an act with the 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. Culpable homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide. 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; or (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 is was likely to cause death. Learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that there are three species of mens rea in culpable homicide. First, an intention to cause death; second, an intention to cause a dangerous injury; third, knowledge that death is likely to happen. The act is said to cause death when death results either from the act directly or results from some consequence necessarily or naturally flowing from such act and reasonably contemplated as its result. The offence is complete as soon as any person is killed. 7. It is also the submission of learned Panel Lawyer that the words 'rash' and 'negligent' used in sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC refers to the act, though done with due care and caution despite by which harm/hurt is caused to someone. In other words, the act which is done so negligently and rashly that may definitely cause harm/hurt to someone, cannot be said to be rash and negligent act only, rather it should be construed as the act done with the 'knowledge' or 'intention' to cause harm/hurt or to cause death. 8. Hence, on the anvil of the aforesaid submissions, in the context of the present case, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that as per prosecution story, the applicant drove the aforementioned unauthorisedly modified motor-cycle (on which three persons were riding) with high speed, so rashly and negligently, that hit 8 years old girl, who suffered severe injuries on her body and succumbed to the injuries. This act of the applicant does not fall within the purview of Section 304A of IPC, rather it is covered under section 304 of IPC. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the 'intention' or 'knowledge' of an act can only be gathered by the manner in which the act was done and it is always the matter of evidence. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the 'intention' or 'knowledge' of an act can only be gathered by the manner in which the act was done and it is always the matter of evidence. Hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 11. Consequently, the application under section 438 of CrPC stands rejected. A copy of this order be given to learned Panel Lawyer for keeping the same in the concerned case diary.