GIRISH SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL

    48       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A   High Court. Hence the present appeal.
         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
        HELD: 1.1 Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where
 . there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge
B that the act done in all probability will cause death. The
   provision relates to offences outside the range of Sec-
   tions 299 and 300 IPC. (Para - 8) [50-C]
       1.2 When the intent or knowledge is the direct moti-
  vating force of the act, Section 304-A IPC has to make
C room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable
  homicide. (Para - 8) [50-E]
       1.3 In order to be encompassed by the protection
  under Section 304-A IPC there should be neither inten-
D tion nor knowledge to cause death. When any of these
  two elements is found to be present, Section 304-A IPC
  has no application. (Para - 9) [50-F]
       2. When the background facts are considered in the
  light of the legal principles, the inevitable conclusion is
E that stand of the appellant is clearly unsustainable. (Para-
  10) [50-G]
         CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDCTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 849 of 2008
F         From the Judgment & Order dated 21.3.2006 of the High Court
    of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 203/2006
         Radhe Shyam Sharma, (A.C.) for the Appellant.
         Sun ii Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar Singh and Jatinder Kumar
G . Bhatia for the Respondent.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
         2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
H   Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the ap-
                   GIRISH SINGH v.                               49
     STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

peal filed by the appellant who was convicted for offence punish-      A
able under Section 304 Part 11 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five
years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
     3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
                                                                     B
      Sageer Ansari (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
was a carpenter, who used to live in Hotel Hari Om in Uttarkashi.
On 27 .3.2005, he was coming from Hari Om Hotel towards
Uttarkashi town.Accused/appellant Girish Singh was coming from
opposite direction towards Sageer Ansari-deceased. When both c
of them reached near Tambakhani they had some altercations
between them. Suddenly, accused-appellant Girish Singh pushed
deceased Sageer Ansari from the road. Consequently, Sageer
Ansari fell down from the hill and suffered injuries due to the fall
from Uttarkashi - Tehri Road. The incident took place at 1.00
                                                                     0
p.m. PW3 lsrail Mian, brother of the deceased, and PW4 Mazhar
Ansari, son of the deceased, who were following Sageer Ansari
(deceased), witnessed the incident. The two rushed to the place
of incident and took the injured to the hospital where he suc-
cumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the incident. PW3 lsrail E
Mian, brother of the deceased, lodged first information report (Ext.
A-3) with the police station. Investigation was undertaken and on
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. As accused
abjured guilt, trial was held.
       4. Placing reliance on the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e.   F
lsrail Mian (PW3) and Mazhar Ansari (PW4) (brother and son of the
deceased respectively), the Trial Court found the accused-appellant
guilty and convicted him and imposed sentence as noted above.
      5. In appeal before the High Court the stand of the accused
was that this in not a case where Section 304 Part 11 IPC is appli- G
cable. On the other hand, this is a case where even if the pros-
ecution version is accepted in toto, it would, at the most, an of-
fence punishable under Section 304A IPC. Another plea related
to acceptance of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 on the ground that
they are related to the deceased. Both the pleas were rejected H
    50        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A and appeal was dismissed, The stand taken before the High Court
  was reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant.
         6. In response. learned counsel for the respondent-State sup-
    ported the judgments of the Trial Court as upheld by the High Court.
B        7. The pleq relating to relative's evidence has no sub-
    stance, when such evidence has credence it can be acted upon.
          8. Coming to the plea of the applicability of Section 304-
  A, it is to be noted that the said provision relates to death caused
  by negligence. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is
C no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done
  in all probability· will cause death. The provision relates to of-
  fences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. It ap-
  plies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are
  directly the cause of death of another person. Rashness and
D negligence are essential elements under Section 304-A. It
  carves out a specific offence where death is caused IJy doing a
  rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable
  homicide under Section 299 or murder in Section 300 IPC.
  Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that
E doing an act was likely to cause a person's -death is culpable
  homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivat-
  ing force of the act, Section 304-A IPC has to make room for
  the graver and more serious cha~ge of culpable homicide.
        9. In order to be encompassed by the protection under
F Section 304-A there should be neither intention nor knowledge
  to cause death. When any of these two elements is found to be
  present, Section 304-A has no application.
                       :0-..
        10. When th~ ba"ckground facts are considered in the light
G of the legal principles set out above, the inevitable conclusion
  is that stand of the aRP.ellant is clearly unsustainable.
         11. The appeal is wit~out merit, deserves dismissal. which
    we direct.
H S.K.S                                            Appeal dismissed