The act must be the immediate or proximate cause for the occurrence, and negligence must be of a high degree to constitute gross negligence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.1803 of 2017 pending on the file of the XV – Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.1803 of 2017 for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., pending on the file of the XV – Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2. The allegation in the charge sheet is that on 07.04.2017 at about 1 P.M., the defacto complainant''s six year old daughter had fallen into an open water sump in the flat premises at No.28/88, 3rd Street, Nethaji Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai. The petitioner is the house owner of the building wherein, the de-facto complainant and his family members resided as tenants.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that because of the rash and negligent act of the petitioner in not closing the water sump, the occurrence took place in which, the de-facto complainant''s six year old daughter had passed away.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that merely because the petitioner is the owner of the premises, he cannot be made liable for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., as in order to constitute the said offence, the act of the accused should be the causa causans (i.e.,) immediate cause for the occurrence and not the remote cause. The learned counsel further submitted that even assuming that the act of the petitioner amounts to negligence, it does not amount to “gross” negligence within the meaning of Section 304-A of I.P.C.,.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submits that the Defacto Complainant''s daughter had fallen into the water sump which was not closed and the petitioner being the responsible person and owner of the premises is liable for the rash act in not closing the water sump. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Quash Proceedings.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Though the notice was served to the second respondent, none has appeared on behalf of the second respondent.

7. This Court finds the charge against the petitioner is that he is the owner of the premises in which, the de-facto complainant resided as tenant. He acted in a negligent manner in not closing the water sump which is situated in the ground floor, as a result of which, the defacto complainant''s daughter fell into the sump and died. This Court finds that the allegations in the charge sheet do not indicate as to how the acts of the petitioner is the causa causans for the death of the deceased girl. It is certainly an unfortunate incident but unless, there is a clear evidence to show that the act of the petitioner was the causa causans (i.e.,) immediate cause for the accident, he cannot be charged for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.,. In this regard, the Judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sushil Ansal vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2014) 6 SCC 173 would directly apply to the facts of the case. The relevant portions of the said Judgment are extracted below:

“81.Suffice it to say that this Court has in Kurban Hussein''s case accepted in unequivocal terms the correctness of the proposition that criminal liability under Section 304 – A of the I.P.C., shall arise only if the prosecution proves that the death of the victim was the result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that such act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another person''s negligence. A subsequent decision of this Court in Suleman Rahiman Mulani vs. State of Maharasthra has once again approved the view taken in Omkar Ramprathap case that the act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and