For a charge under Section 304-A IPC to be sustained, death must be the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused.

K.S.Garewal, J.

1. This petition has been filed by Chetan Bhatnagar and Parminder Singh to challenge the charges framed against them by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. Earlier the trial Court had on September 25, 1998 discharged the accused but that order was challenged through a revision petition and was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated May 23, 2000.

2. The petitioners had, through criminal revision 16 of 2001 challenged the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on May 23, 2000 and through criminal revision 1296 of 2000 challenged the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby charges have been framed against them. Both petitions shall be disposed of together. Notice to the complainant was also issued and he was impleaded as respondent and was heard.

3. This case relates to the death of Subh Ram, son of the complainant Raghbir Singh, on November 13, 1997. Subh Ram was a mechanic employed by Satish Jain on job basis. On the fateful day he was called by Satish Jain for fitting a tubewell engine. At 6 PM the complainant came to know from Naval Singh that Subh Ram had gone to fit the engine with Jains men in a well in Bariyawas and had become unconscious. He was taken out of the well and sent to Rewari for treatment. Chetan Bhatnagar and Parminder Singh, two engineers, of Greaves Company (petitioners herein) and Jains employee Shiva had also been present at the spot. When the complainant reached the hospital he found his son lying dead. The complainant lodged the report giving the above facts and stating that Subh Rams death was due to the carelessness of the three men named above. The trial court has framed charge under Section 304-A IPC for committing a negligent act which caused Subh Rams death.

4. The matter was considered in detail by the learned Addl. C.J.M., who vide orders dated September 25, 1998 had found that charges were not established as the prosecution had not filed copies of the inquest report and the post-mortem report. The said order was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the trial court was directed to consider the framing of charges afresh after calling for the said documents. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material on record and that the accused could be charged under Section 304-A IPC.

5. The incident leading to Subh Rams death was witnessed only by Tripti wife of Mukesh (and daughter-in-law of Naval Singh), resident of Majri Gurdas who had this to say in her police statement :-

"I am resident of the above mentioned address and do household work. On 13.11.1997 in the evening, I went to my well in the area Bariyawas to get kasni. At that time of the well two persons of Jain namely Subh Ram and Shiva and two engineers namely Parminder Singh and Chetan Bhatnagar were present. Subh Ram had gone inside the well at that time to repair the engine and there itself he became unconscious. Bhatnagar called out aloud saying God knows what had happened to Subh Ram in the well and that he had become unconscious. On hearing this I went to the village and many persons reached the well. Subh Ram was taken out of the well and taken to Rewari for treatment. My father-in-law Naval Singh went to village Sanghwari to give information about Subh Ram. Later on information came that Subh Ram had died due to carelessness of the above mentioned three workers. I have heard the statement which is correct."

The sole question to be considered in this case is whether the charge dated October 9, 2000 can be sustained. Charges were framed in the following terms :-

"That on 13.11.97 at about 6.00 P.M. in the area of Bhariyawas you all by doing negligent act caused death of Subh Ram s/o Raghubir and thus you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and within the cognizance of this Court."

6. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are engineers employed by the company which had m