Back
P. G. AJITHKUMAR
Renjith Raj, S/o. Raju K. K. – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by C. I. of Police – Respondent
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 offenc
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....
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove the offense under Section 304A of IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate rash and negligent driving, and mere speed cannot be equat....
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
