The distinction between culpable homicide and negligent act hinges on the presence of knowledge about the act likely causing death.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.4.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in ST No.242/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Sections 285 & 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months and RI for four years respectively.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused/appellant was running a fancy shop where he would sell petrol illegally without following safety measures. On 14.3.2005 at 7.30 pm while he was giving petrol to Sanjay in a jerrycan, the electricity went off. So the appellant lit a candle and at that time, as electricity supply restored the fan started moving, the flame of the candle began to flicker and the jerrycan containing petrol caught fire. Sanjay ran away from there. However, as the appellant threw the burning jerrycan out of his shop, it fell over deceased Lalit Kumar who was standing by the side of the road. Initially Lalit Kumar was taken to hospital at Kharsiya where after primary treatment he was sent to Govt. Kirodimal Hospital, Raigarh and from there referred to Bhilai but during the course of treatment he died. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet under Section 285 and 304 of IPC was filed against the accused/appellant. Learned trial Court charged the accused/appellant under Sections 285 and 302 of IPC which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial.

3. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence he examined one Bhagau Ram as DW-1.

4. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that the appellant had neither intention nor knowledge of causing death of the ceased. Even otherwise, there are contradiction and omission in the statements of the witnesses which make the whole prosecution case as against the appellant doubtful. As the incident took place all of a sudden and the appellant had no knowledge or intention to commit the alleged offence, the impugned judgment being illegal is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged underSections 285 and 302 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

9. The FIR (Ex.P/3) goes to show that on the date of incident, the accused/appellant was selling petrol without any safety measures, at that time the electricity went off, so he lit a candle and as the electricity restored, the fan which was already on switched on, started moving and the candle’s flame started flickering and accidentally the petrol je