ORDER :

1. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 5.9.2023 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Rajnandgaon has framed charges under Sections 304, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against accused/applicant.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that complainant lodged written report in concerned police station mentioning that on 23.5.2022 his son namely Yash Chouthwani was returning home from his Activa vehicle bearing registration number CG04-HK-4924 and at about 12:15 p.m., when he reached near Agrawal Petrol Pump, at that time, accused/applicant driving Bolero vehicle bearing registration mark CG09-5161, rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed Activa vehicle of his son and caused accident. As a result, his son suffered head injury along with multiple injuries all over body. He was immediately taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead by the doctor. Based on said complaint, the offence under Section 279, 304A, & 337 of IPC was registered against applicant. After due investigation, police found that act attributed to applicant falls within the category of Section 304 of IPC and accordingly submitted final report against applicant for commission of offence under Sections 427 & 304 of IPC. The trial Court after hearing the parties, framed the charges under Sections 427 & 304 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that initially whole case in the FIR and attending material is of accidental death because there was nothing to show that that applicant and deceased were known to each other or applicant drove the vehicle with an intention to cause death of deceased. However, the prosecution ignoring aforesaid aspect of the matter, has submitted the charge sheet under Section 304 of IPC, against applicant, which is per se illegal. He further contended that even if the entire prosecution case is taken to be true, then also there is no material to satisfy that petitioner had knowledge that those injuries, if inflicted on deceased, would cause his death and as such, at the most charge under Section 304A of IPC can be framed against the applicant i.e. for being negligent in driving the vehicle on road, and not under Section 304 of IPC as is framed by trial court. Therefore, the order impugned framing charge under Section 304 of IPC is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision rendered in case of Prabhakaran vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 269.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the submissions of learned counsel for applicant would submit that, there are sufficient materials to attract the offences under Sections 304 & 427 of IPC. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and, as such, the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC vested with this Court cannot be invoked. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with revision.

6. The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in framing charge under Section 304 of IPC?

7. Section 299 of IPC explains ‘culpable homicide’. It provides that if an act is done with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing bodily injury that is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death and if ultimately death ensues, then it amounts to culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is of two types i.e. murder, and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

8. Section 304 of IPC reads as under:-

"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to muder. - Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description f