SHORT NOTE
KERALA HIGH COURT
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
Renjith Raj, S/o.Raju K.K. – Appellant
versus
State, Represented by C.I. of Police – Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.957 of 2018
Decided on 16.1.2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 464 – Causing death by rash and negligent driving – Conviction and sentence – Charge framed against appellant was for an offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 A of the IPC – Ingredients of offence under Section 304 A of IPC were stated and brought to notice of accused – Omission in charge to mention Section 304A of IPC and words ‘rashly or negligently’ would not render conviction illegal, inasmuch as appellant was given enough notice about allegations constituting charge against him – Charge framed against him contains allegation that bus was driven through footpath in over-speed and that was proximate reason for his causing bus hitting handrails and body of deceased – Every court while framing a charge in cases of death involving use of motor vehicles and a final report is filed alleging offence under Section 304 of IPC, trial court is obliged to apply mind and decide whether an alternative charge for an offence punishable under Section 304A is also to be framed – Appeal dismissed.
Held: In the charge Section 304 A of the IPC and the word, rashly or negligently were not mentioned. But, from a reading of the charge, it can be seen that the ingredients of the offence under Section 304 A of the IPC were stated and brought to the notice of the accused. Therefore, at the best, there is a defect in framing the charge by not specifically stating Section 304 A of the IPC and the word, rashly or negligently. Section 464 of the Code is attracted to the instant case.
Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, omission in the charge to mention Section 304A of the IPC and the words ‘rashly or negligently’ would not render the conviction illegal, inasmuch as the appellant was given enough notice about the allegations constituting the charge against him. The charge framed against him contains the allegation that the bus was driven through footpath in over-speed and that was the proximate reason for his causing the bus hitting the handrails and the body of the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant pertaining to the lack of charge is untenable. No prejudice to the appellant owing to the aforementioned omission in the charge is made out as well.
In view of the provisions of sub-section (2) above also, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC cannot be held to be bad. All the same, every court while framing a charge in cases of death involving use of motor vehicles and a final report is filed alleging offence under Section 304 of the IPC, the trial court is obliged to apply mind and decide whether an alternative charge for an offence punishable under Section 304A is also to be framed as provided in Section 221 of the Code. In view of what are stated above, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. Considering the gravity of the offence, the sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be held to be excessive. The appeal therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). He was tried for an offence under Section 304 of the IPC by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. He was convicted for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC.
2. The Circle Inspector of Police, City Traffic (West) Police Station, Ernakulam filed final report in Crime No.9735 of 2014 of the said police station with the following allegations: At about 12.50 p.m. on 08.11.2014 the appellant drove the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-02-AE-6673 along Ernakulam Paramara Road from north to south and while negotiating the bus to enter the Banerji Road, it hit against the handrails separating the footpath from the road. Body part of the bus tore off and that hit against Sri.Velayudhan, who was waiting on the road side. He got entangled under the bus and suffered serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries. Alleging that the appellant drove the bus with the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause death of passengers or pedestrians, he was charged for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC.
3. At the trial before the court below PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Exts.P1 to 36 were marked, besides Ext.C1. During the examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances appeared in evidence against him. He maintained that he was innocent. No evidence was let in on his side. The court below, after appreciating and analysing the evidence, found that it was the appellant, who was driving the bus at the time of occurrence and his rash and negligent driving was the proximate cause for dashing the bus against the handrails on the side of the road entering the footpath and hitting against the deceased, resulting in his death. By holding that the evidence tendered by the prosecution proved beyond doubt the identity of the appellant as well as his rash and negligent driving had resulted in the death of Sri.Velayudhan, the court below convicted and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. The appellant challenges the said findings in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The facts that the bus bearing Reg.No. KL-02-AE-6673 dashed against the handrails on the side of the road and it ran over to the footpath at Paramara Road -Banerji Road junction at 12.15 p.m. on 08.11.2014, resulting in damaging the handrails and causing injuries to Sri.Velayudhan, a pedestrian, are not in dispute. Sri.Velayudhan succumbed to the injuries also is not in dispute.
6. Sri.Velayudhan was immediately taken to the General Hospital, Ernakulam where he was pronounced dead. PW12 is a senior civil police officer. He was on duty on 08.11.2014 near the place of occurrence. Hearing a hue and cry he looked to see the bus in question stopped at the place of occurrence. He rushed to the spot. PW11 is a civil police officer. He was on traffic duty at the place of occurrence itself. He deposed that on hearing sound and pandemonium he looked to the spot and saw the bus stopped ramming against the handrails and passing over the footpath. People alarmed that one person was entangled under the bus. He found a person below the bus and hence he asked the driver to move the bus behind. He, with the help of onlookers, took out the injured. PW12 along with another person took the injured to the General Hospital, Ernakulam. PW12 further deposed that the doctor who examined Sri. Velayudhan pronounced him dead.
7. Ext.P9 is the inquest report prepared by PW14, a Sub Inspector attached to the city traffic police station. PWs 3 and 4 are witnesses to the inquest and attestors to Ext. P9. Ext.P29 is the report of the autopsy, where the extensive nature of the injuries sustained by Sri. Velayudhan and that such injuries resulted in his dea
Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra
Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
3 . Benny vs. State of Kerala.
Fainul Khan vs. State of Jharkhand.
Every court while framing a charge in cases of death involving use of motor vehicles and a final report is filed alleging offence under Section 304 of IPC, trial court is obliged to apply mind and de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the omission in the charge to mention Section 304A of the IPC and the words ‘rashly or negligently’ would not render the conviction illegal, a....
The court confirmed that knowledge of a likelihood of death is essential for culpable homicide under S.304 Part II IPC, distinguishing it from negligence under S.304A IPC.
Knowledge of likely fatal consequences in reckless driving can elevate culpable homicide to be charged under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 304A IPC.
It is settled law that sentence to be imposed in a case should be consistent with atrocity and brutality with which crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it s....
The judgment outlined that driving with a known disability and without a license constitutes culpable homicide when it leads to death, under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
Victim of accident cannot be held responsible for delay in registration of FIR.
Negligence and rashness must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; mere involvement in an accident does not equate to guilt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.