Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 473 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 280 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 473 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 December, 1964
13. In a case of similar nature the Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. [See Mohd. Rangawalla v. Maharashtra State AIR 1965 SC 1616]. That is a case where the appellant therein was found guilty of offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The appellant was one of the partners of a factory which manufactured paints and varnish. The appellant had no licence to manufacture wet paints. However, an employee of the factory in the process of manufacturing wet paints poured turpentine into a barrel which contained melted rosin. As the turpentine was poured the mixture began to froth and in order to keep down the froth the whole thing had to be stirred up but no stirring was done as the assistant was not there. The result was that froth overflowed out of the barrel and because of the heat, varnish and turpentine which were stored at a short distance caught fire. Seven men who were working in a loft which is reached by a ladder sustained serious burn injuries and died. The appellant was convicted under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code would be attracted only when the death is caused by rash and negligent act and that the death must be the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused. The Supreme Court also held that the direct and proximate cause of the fire breaking out with the consequence that seven persons were burnt to death was due to the negligence of the employee and the appellant who allowed turpentine and varnish to be stored at a distant place was only an indirect factor in the breaking out of fire. Similarly, in the present case it is not proved that the 1st accused was present at the scene of occurrence and that he invited the passengers to the boat and undertook the hazardous journey. Therefore, the conviction of the 1st accused under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.