ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, petitioner haS challenged the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.37/2017 whereby the leaned Judge has ordered to frame charges for the offences under Sections 304 , 279 & 337 of the IPC against the petitioner.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, the necessary facts for the disposal of the case are that on 16.05.2017 at about 4:55 p.m. Surendra Kumar filed a written report to SHO, P.S. Hanumangarh Town alleging inter alia that at about 7:00-8:00 p.m. when he, Jenaram and Rajkumar were going from National Highway to Ramdev Temple then a Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.PB60A-6713, which was driven by Aman rashly and negligently hit Rajkumar and Jenaram and he was on the other side resulting which Jenaram fell down on road and Rajkumar stuck down on the bonnet of the car was dragged by the driver for almost one and half kilo meters away where after near the Uttam Palace, his body was taken out under the car resulting which his leg was cut and he succumbed to the injuries. Jena Ram complained that he was having pain on his right shoulder and some bruises were found on his left thigh. Upon the said complaint, the said FIR has been registered for the offences under Section 304 , 279 & 337 of the IPC. After investigation, offence was found proved against the petitioner and charge sheet was filed in the Court concerned. Hence this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in passing the order impugned and the charge under Section 304 IPC has wrongly been framed against the petitioner as before the incident they were unknown to each other and there was no previous animosity between the petitioner and the deceased Rajkumar. He further states that as per medical report, petitioner was not found drunk at the time of alleged incident and the accident took place due to error of judgment; he did not have any knowledge that Rajkumar was stuck under the car and thus, his case would fall under Section 304 A of the IPC instead of under Section 304 IPC. Lastly, it is prayed that order framing charges against the petitioner to the extent of the offence under Section 304 IPC may be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the order impugned.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and the relevant material available on record.

6. A perusal of the record revealing that at the relevant point of time, the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The fact that the victim was a pedestrian and hit by the car where after his body stuck to the vehicle but the vehicle was not stopped then and there, on the contrary, the petitioner continued to drive the vehicle by dragging the victim under his car and he was dragged around one kilometer. Any person of common prudence should have knowledge that driving a person under a running car for one kilometer and more, may likely cause his death. Knowledge is a thing which is to be inferred from the circumstances. It cannot be denied at this stage that had the vehicle been stopped at once after hitting the victim, he could have survived. At the same time, it can also be inferred that dragging his body alongwith the car for one kilometer would be more prone to cause a death.

7. Learned trial Judge has aptly appreciated the legal and factual aspects of the matter and due opportunit