AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O.P. Jain, J.—Sri Samir Jain, holding brief of Sri I.M. Khan, is present for the revisionist and A.G.A. for the State.
The prosecution case against the revisionist is that he was driver of a passenger train and deliberately defied the red signal and dashed against a goods train with the result that a number of persons died and several others received injuries.
The Court below has framed charges against the revisionist under Sections 304 and 304A, I.P.C. It is argued that no case u/s 304, I.P.C. is made out and at best a case u/s 304A, I.P.C. is made out. Learned Counsel has cited State of Gujarat Vs. Haidarali Kalubhai, , in support of this contention.
In the cited case the accused were charged u/s 304. Part II but the conviction was altered on appeal to Section 304A. In Paragraph 4 of the judgment it has been observed that if a person will fully drives a motor vehicle into 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.
In the instant case the witnesses have stated that the revisionist deliberately flouted the red signal and dashed the passenger train against the goods train. Therefore, the revisionist has rightly been charged u/s 304, I.P.C.
The next contention is that the person cannot be charged u/s 304, I.P.C. as well as 304A, I.P.C. because the ingredient of the two offences are totally different.
This contention is correct and therefore, revision is partly allowed. The charge framed by the Court below u/s 304A is quashed. The accused shall stand trial u/s 304. I.P.C. only.