Culpable homicide requires intention and knowledge, while section 304 - A IPC pertains to causing death by negligence.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.8.2011 passed in Session Trial No. 40/2011 by the Session Judge Kabirdham, whereby charges u/s 304 Part - II IPC have been framed against the applicant.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: -
The applicant was a tractor driver. On the fateful day i. e. on 14.5.2011, he was engaged in driving tractor No. CG - 10 / D - 1128 belonging to one Narayan Chandrakar. The tractor was fitted with a 4 wheeler - trolley. The applicant, on instructions of the owner, had taken the tractor - trolley for loading bricks. Deceased - Rameshwar Chandrakar and Durgesh Pandey loaded the bricks in the trolley. They closed the side dala of the trolley. Thereafter the applicant started the engine of the tractor. He was sitting on the driving seat. He asked the deceased to lift the locker - patti. On this the deceased stood on the angle of the tractor. He was trying to climb on the trolley during which course the applicant started the tractor by negligently driving it and the deceased slipped from the angle and came under the wheel of the trolley and died. The First Information Report was registered u/s 304 IPC and the charge - sheet was filed. On the evidence of eye - witnesses namely Durgesh Pandey and Ganeshi Ram and on other material available on record, the learned Session Judge framed the following charges, which is challenged by the applicant in this revision:

3. Mr. A. K. Yadav & Mr. Virendra Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, argued that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie an offence u/s 304 Part - II IPC would not be made out, therefore, the charges under the above Section cannot be sustained. They argued that according to the material available in the charge - sheet, the applicant, at the most, would be liable for facing charges u/s 304 - A IPC.

4. On the other hand, Mr. R. R. Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the charges framed by the Session Judge.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the criminal revision which contains copy of entire charge - sheet.

6. Among the three Sections of IPC i. e. 302, 304 & 304 - A, S.304 - A is an offence where the death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act, but such act does not amount to culpable homicide u/s 294 or murder u/s 300 IPC. Doing an act with an intention of causing death or knowledge that doing such an act was likely to cause death is culpable homicide. Therefore, intention or knowledge are the two important elements to bring an act within the ambit of any part of S.304 IPC. Knowledge of consequences which may result in doing an act is quite different than the intention which denotes that a particular consequence should ensure. For attracting the former part of S.304, an element of intention is a factor whereas for attracting the later part, an element of knowledge is a factor. The intention is the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular result, whereas, the knowledge is an awareness which attributes to be well informed that a particular result may happen by doing a thing. S.304A relates to causing death by negligence. It provides that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of this Section.

7. Therefore, with reference to above, three categories for classification of an offence are very clear. One, culpable homicide amounting to murder; other, culpable homici