REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 849  OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4212 of 2007)

Girish Singh …Appellant  

Versus

State of Uttaranchal ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned

Single  Judge  of  the  Uttaranchal  High  Court  dismissing  the

appeal  filed by the  appellant  who was convicted  for  offence

punishable  under  Section  304  Part  II  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:

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  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 p.m.

2

PW3 Israil  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

succumbed  to  the  injuries  suffered  by him in the  incident.

PW3  Israil  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.

Israil 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 II  IPC is 3

applicable.  On the other hand, this is a case where even if the

prosecution version is accepted in toto, it would, at the most,

an offence 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  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

supported the judgments of the Trial Court as upheld by the

High Court.

7. The plea relating to relative’s evidence has no substance,

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

4

no intention to cause death and no knowledge  that the act

done in all probability will cause death. The provision relates

to offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. It

applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are

directly the cause of death of another person. Rashness and

negligence  are  essential  elements  under  Section  304-A.  It

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 in Section 300 IPC.

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  the  intent  or  knowledge  is  the  direct

motivating force  of the act,  Section 304-A IPC has to make

room  for  the  graver  and  more  serious  charge  of  culpable

homicide.

9. In  order  to  be  encompassed  by  the  protection  under

Section  304-A  there  should  be  neither  intention  nor

5

knowledge to cause death. When any of these two elements is

found to be present, Section 304-A has no application.  

10. When the background facts are considered in the light of

the legal principles set out above, the inevitable conclusion is

that stand of the appellant is clearly unsustainable.   

11. The appeal  is without merit,  deserves dismissal,  which

we direct.

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…….………..........................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, May 9, 2008

6