Back
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Application No. 269 of 2017.
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.11.2017, the revision application filed by the appellants assailing the order dated 01.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014 came to be dismissed.
2.1. Be it stated that by the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2017, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dismissed the discharge applications filed by the appellants being Exhibit Nos. 6 and 10 in Sessions Case No.749 of 2014.
3. Appellants are Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and Nimesh Pravinchandra Shah.
4. Appellant No. 1 was doing interior decoration of the concerned shop in Pune on contract basis. Appellant No. 2 was the Store Operation Manager of M/s. lntergold Gems Private Limited which had taken the concerned shop on lease.
4.1. On 27.09.2013, at about 09:00 PM, the work of decoration of the front side of the shop was being undertaken by two employees of appellant No.1, Salauddin Shaikh and A
(1) Discharge of accused – By its very nature, discharge is at a higher pedestal than acquittal – Acquittal is at end of trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or prosecution....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and death by negligence, as defined in Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC, respectively.
Point of law : A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence.
The court found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Negligence leading to accidental death can attract liability under Section 304-A IPC when safety protocols are ignored despite known risks, as established by credible evidence.
The judgment emphasizes that the material must prima facie indicate the accused's guilt of culpable homicide, and the knowledge of the accused persons about the sub-standard construction being likely....
Criminal proceedings against public servants for negligence cannot be quashed on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, as negligent acts or omissions do not constitute acts performed....
Criminal liability under IPC for negligence requires direct causation and gross negligence must be established; absence of presence at the incident absolves the petitioner of responsibility.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
