Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The appellant had been prosecuted and convicted under Section 304A and 285 IPC. His appeal before the High Court had been dismissed. He then preferred a further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while acquitting him for offence under Section 304A IPC held as follows:-

“The main contention of the appellant is that he was not present when the fire broke out resulting in the death of seven workmen by burning and it cannot therefore be said that he caused the death of these seven persons by doing any rash or negligent act. The view taken by the Magistrate on the other hand which appears to have been accepted by the High Court was that as the appellant allowed the manufacture of wet paints in the same room where varnish and turpentine were stored and the fire resulted because of the proximity of the burners to the stored varnish and turpentine, he must be held responsible for the death of the seven workmen who were burnt in the fire. We are -however of opinion that this view of the Magistrate is not correct. The mere fact that the appellant allowed the burners to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it might be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the appellant responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of burners in the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out. But what s. 304-A requires is causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act, and this means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act. It appears that the direct or proximate cause of the fire which resulted in seven deaths was the act of Hatim. It seems to us clear that Hatim was apparently in a hurry and therefore he did not perhaps allow the rosin to cool down sufficiently and poured turpentine too quickly. The evidence of the expert is that the process of adding turpentine to melted rosin is a hazardous process and the proportion of froth would depend upon the quantity of turpentine added. The expert also stated that if turpentine is not slowly added to bitumen and rosin before it is cooled down to a certain temperature, such fire is likely to break out. It seems therefore that as turpentine was being added at about closing time, Hatim was not as careful as he https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ should have been and probably did not wait sufficiently for bitumen or rosin to cool down and added turpentine too quickly. The expert has stated that bitumen or rosin melts at 300 degree F and if turpentine is added at that temperature, it will catch fire. The flash point of turpentine varies from 76 to 110 degree F. Therefore the cooling must be brought down, according to the expert, to below 76 degree F to avoid fire. In any case even if that is not done, turpentine has to be added slowly so that there may not be too much frothing. Clearly therefore the fire broke out because bitumen or rosin was not allowed to cool down sufficiently and turpentine was added too quickly in view of the fact that the process was performed at closing time. It is clearly the negligence of Hatim which was the direct or proximate cause of the fire breaking out, though the fact that burners were kept in the same room in which turpentine, and vamish were stored was indirectly responsible for the fire breaking out and spreading so quickly. Even so in order that a person may be guilty under s. 304-A, the rash or negligent act should be the direct or proximate cause of the death. In the present case it was Hatim's act which was the direct and proximate cause of the fire breaking out with the consequence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ that seven persons were burnt to death; the act of the appellant in allowing turpentine and varnish being stored at a short distance was only an indirect factor in the breaking out of fire...”

8. An anlaysis of the above Judgment would show that evidence pointed out that the appellant was not physically present when the accident or the incident of fire took place. He came there as soon as the information about it reached him. Further, it had been observed that the cause of the fire was not the presence of the burners in the room in which the varnish and turpentine were stored. It was found on evidence that the direct or proximate cause of the fire which resulted in seven deaths was the act of another accused Hatim, who did not allow the rosin to cool down sufficiently and poured turpentine too quickly. During the course of trial as is seen from the above extract, an expert was also examined, who also gave an opinion that fire is likely to break out if turpentine is not solely added to bitumen and rosin before it is cooled down to a certain temperature. It was held on evidence that the negligence of Hatim was the direct or proximate cause of the fire breaking out. It was further held that the act of the appellant in allowing turpentine and varnish being stored at a short distance was only an indirect factor in the breaking out of a fire. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

84. The expression “proximate cause” is defined in the 5th Edn. Of Black's Law Dictionary as under:

“Proximate cause.—That which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred. Wisniewski v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. [226 Pa Super 574 :

323 A2d 744 (1974)] , A2d at p. 748. That which is nearest in the order of responsible causation. That which stands next in causation to the effect, not necessarily in time or space but in causal relation.

The proximate cause of an injury is the primary or moving cause, or that which, in a natural and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the accident could not have happened, if the injury be one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the wrongful act. An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act, or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case, that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission.”