QAMRUL ISLAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2858 of 1987

Qamrul Islam
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : A.K. Awasthi, Bijay Kumar Srivastava,
                                   Hriday Kumar Singh, Jai Prakash Prasad
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.G.A.

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 10.11.1987 passed by Shri S.N. Pandey, IXth Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Sessions Trial No. 455 of 1986, Police
Station Koraon, District Allahabad, convicting and sentencing the appellant
under Section 304-A I.P.C. to undergo one year R.I.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Shri Sharda Prasad
Singh, is a resident of Village Bhalua under the jurisdiction of Koraon Police
Station in District Allahabad. The deceased, Shri Indra Bahadur Singh, was
the real brother of the complainant.

3. On 9 March 1985, at approximately 2:00 PM, the deceased left his house
for Koraon Bazaar to purchase certain articles required for his factory. When
he did not return home by evening, the complainant, along with the
deceased's son Kunj Raj Singh and a co-villager Krishna Bahadur Singh,
became concerned about his whereabouts. Consequently, at about 8:30 PM,
they proceeded towards Koraon town in search of him.

4. Upon reaching Manda Chauraha, they found the deceased waiting for a
conveyance to return to his village. Several other persons were also present
at the spot. At that time, Suresh Babu, a constable attached to Koraon Police
Station and one of the accused in the present case, was also present there.

5. The witnesses allegedly heard the said constable saying to the
deceased,"Thakur, aaj kuchh chhana do." The deceased replied that he was
returning home and would offer him a treat on some other occasion. Upon
hearing this response, the accused Suresh Babu caught hold of the shirt of
the deceased and began pulling him. When the deceased protested, the
accused slapped him and forcibly dragged him towards a nearby liquor shop.
                                                         CRLA No. 2858 of 1987
                                2

6. At that moment, a truck bearing Registration No. UTB-2267 approached
from the direction of Manda road. The accused allegedly signaled the truck
and uttered the words "Crush him". Immediately thereafter, he pushed the
deceased off the platform (chabutra). As a result, the deceased fell under the
wheels of the truck and was run over, causing his instantaneous death.

7. Following the incident, the accused Suresh Babu attempted to flee the
scene on his bicycle. However, the complainant managed to catch hold of
the bicycle, whereupon the accused abandoned it and escaped on foot.
Meanwhile, the witnesses Krishna Bahadur Singh and Kunj Raj Singh
chased the truck and successfully intercepted it near Chungi Naka. The
driver of the truck disclosed his identity as Qamrul Islam.

8. Subsequently, the complainant Sharda Prasad Singh submitted a written
report at Koraon Police Station against the truck driver and the constable. On
the basis of the said report, a criminal case was registered under Sections
302, 279, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

9. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as ten
prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1 Sharda Prashad, P.W.-2 Kunjraj, P.W.-3
Krishna Bahadur, P.W.-4 Girdhari Lal, P.W.-5 Purushottam Singh, P.W.-6
Dr. B.R. Singh, P.W.-7 Chandra Shekhar, P.W.-8 Ram Singh, P.W.-9
Dayaram Morya, and P.W.-10 Jai Shankar Singh.

10. The documentary evidence, i.e., Written Report, Ext. Ka.1; Inquest
Report, Ext. Ka.2; Technical Examination of the Vehicle, Ext. Ka.3; Post-
mortem Report, Ext. Ka.4; Photograph of Body, Ext. Ka.5; Challan of Body,
Ext. Ka.6; Recovery memo of blood-stained kurta, Ext. Ka.7; Letter to
C.M.O., Ext. Ka.8; Letter to R.I., Ext. Ka.9; Recovery Memo of Blood-
stained & Plain Soil, Ext. Ka.10; Recovery Memo of Shoes of the Deceased,
Ext. Ka.11; Recovery Memo of Cycle, Ext. Ka.12; Supurdagi Memo, Ext.
Ka.13; Chik Report, Ext. Ka.14; Carbon Copy of General Diary, Ext. Ka.15;
Site plan, Ext Ka-17 & Charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-19 have been duly proved by
the prosecution witnesses. The shoes of the deceased, Material Ext. Ka.1;
Cycle, Ext. Ka.2; Photographs, Exts. Ka.3 to 6; Kurta of the deceased, Ext.
Ka.7, are on record.

11. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the First Information Report and
supported by oral evidence, is that the deceased was pushed by accused
Suresh Babu during an altercation, as a result of which he fell on the road
and his head came in contact with the rear wheel of a passing truck, leading
to his instantaneous death.

12. In appeal, the principal question for consideration is whether the
conviction of appellant Qamrul Islam, under Section 304-A I.P.C. is
sustainable in law.
                                                         CRLA No. 2858 of 1987
                                3

13. The informant, P.W.-1 Sharda Prashad, in his testimony, stated that in
cross-examination, the truck was being driven at a speed of about 40 km per
hour and that when it reached the crossing, the speed of the truck further
slowed down. P.W.-2 Kunjraj also stated in his cross-examination that the
truck was moving at an average speed. From the consistent testimonies of
these prosecution eyewitnesses, it clearly emerges that the truck was not
being driven at a high speed or in a rash manner.

14. Further, both P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 informed that Sharda Prashad Singh
and the son of the deceased, Kunjraj Singh, categorically stated that the head
of the deceased came under the rear wheel of the truck. P.W.-2 Kunjraj
Singh specifically stated that at the time when his father was pushed and fell
on the road, the front portion of the truck had already passed, and only
thereafter did the accident occur with the rear wheel.

15. He further explained that he could not raise any alarm or prevent the
accident because there was no opportunity to do so.

16. These facts clearly indicate that the occurrence took place suddenly and
unexpectedly. The deceased fell on the road due to the push given by co-
accused Suresh Babu, and by the time the truck driver, appellant Qamrul
Islam, could have noticed the same, the front part of the truck had already
crossed the spot. In such circumstances, the truck driver had no reasonable
opportunity to avert the accident.

17. To bring the case within the ambit of Section 304-A I.P.C., the
prosecution must prove that the death was the direct result of a rash and
negligent act of the accused; mere involvement of a vehicle in an accident is
not sufficient.

18. Negligence must be culpable, and such that a prudent person would not
have committed it under similar circumstances. The truck driver would not
be criminally liable if the following conditions are satisfied:

i. The driver was not driving rashly or negligently;

ii. The vehicle was being driven within the permissible speed limit;

iii. The driver had no prior knowledge of, or reasonable opportunity to
avoid, the accident.

19. In the present case, the evidence on record does not establish that
appellant Qamrul Islam was driving the truck rashly or negligently. On the
contrary, the prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that the truck was
                                                                                              CRLA No. 2858 of 1987
                                                                     4

                                    being driven at a normal speed and had slowed down at the crossing. Thus,
                                    the proximate cause of death was the push by co-accused Suresh Babu, and
                                    any liability, if at all, falls on the person who pushed the deceased. The truck
                                    driver cannot be held criminally responsible for the incident.

                                    20. Upon consideration of the facts as presented and the settled principles of
                                    criminal jurisprudence, it is my considered opinion that no criminal liability
                                    attaches to the truck driver under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the
                                    absence of rashness or negligence on his part. Accordingly, this Court is of
                                    the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond
                                    reasonable doubt against appellant Qamrul Islam for causing the death of the
                                    deceased by rashly or negligently driving.

                                    21. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against
                                    him are hereby set aside, and he is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds
                                    are cancelled, and his sureties are discharged.

                                    22. Let a certified copy of this judgment and order be sent forthwith to the
                                    court concerned for its necessary compliance.
                                    January 21, 2026
                                    Pravesh Mishra
                                                                                 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad