MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.
Gunasekaran – Appellant
versus
The State Rep by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2017
Decided on 2.6.2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304 Part II and 308 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – Appellant is not a trainee Driver – Appellant is given training to drive bus by State Transport Corporation – Ignoring those training and responsibility vested in him, he had driven vehicle – Request of passengers in Bus as also request of Conductor of Bus was not heeded by Driver, resulting in accident – Conviction under Sections 304(2) and 308 is found proper – There is delay in registration of FIR – However, for such delay, victim of accident cannot be held responsible – They had no control over investigation agencies for lapses on their – Victims of accident spoken cogently, without any ill-will towards accused – There is no axe to grind against accused – Judgment of conviction and sentence affirmed – However, sentence of imprisonment modified. (Paras 23, 32, 34, 35 and 36)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.301 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. On 04.03.2014, around 2.30 p.m., the Appellant was driving the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30-N-1293 belongs to the State Transport Corporation, Salem Division. The bus was driven from Kadathur to Salem with the passengers on-board. According to the passengers in the bus, the Appellant had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, they pleaded him to drive the bus slowly and cautiously. However, the Appellant retorted by saying that “I drive as I please. Are you scared of death? By saying so, the Appellant proceeded to drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus was nearing S.R.S. Engineering College, Veeranam, the Appellant drove the bus at a hectic speed and hit the bus against a tamarind tree. In the impact, three passengers by name Vijayalkshmi, Samraj and Mayil have sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. That apart, several passengers namely Angamuthu, Radha, Sabapathi, Saranya, Karthikeyan and Shajahan have suffered grievous injuries and were hospitalised. Shajahan is the Conductor of the bus who also suffered grievous injury. On hearing the cries and commotion, the villagers rushed to the scene of occurrence and rescued the injured. One Thirupathy, came to the rescue of the injured and he called the ambulance and also informed the Police about the incident. Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint given by one of the injured victims Angamuthu, the case in Crime No. 81 of 2014 was registered by the Veeranam Police Station against the Appellant/Accused. Ex.P-15 is the First Information Report which was forwarded to the higher Police officials as well as the Court.
2.2. On receipt of Ex.P-15, P.W-18, Assistant Superintendent of Police, taken up the investigation and proceeded to the place of accident. He drew a rough sketch and an observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses Thirupathi and Xavier. He also collected the broken glass pieces of the bus under Form 95. He caused the arrest of the Appellant near Kuppanur Bus Stand and sent him to remand. He also went to the hospital and obtained the statement of the injured witnesses who were undergoing treatment. He had sent requisition letters under Ex.P-17, Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-20 to the Head of Department, Forensic Science Medicine, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem to perform the post mortem on the body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi, Mayil and Samraj. P.W- 17, Dr. Padmavati, Tutor of Forensic Medicine, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem had performed autopsy on the body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi, Samraj and Mayil from 11.15 a.m till 2.30 p.m and issued Post-mortem certificates under Ex.P-16, Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-21 respectively. Thereafter, the body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi was handed over to the Head Constable/P.W-11 Mr. George, the body of the deceased Mayil was handed over to the Head Constable/P.W- 15 Krishnan and the body of the deceased Samraj was handed over to the Special Sub Inspector of Police/P.W-12 Subramani with a direction to hand them over to the respective relatives upon identification.
2.3. Upon transfer of P.W-18, the investigation was taken over by P.W-19, the Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Salem City. He had issued requisition letter to the Regional Transport Officer to conduct Inspection of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30-N-1293 belonging to State Transport Corporation. On receipt of such letter, the Motor Vehicle Inspector/P.W-10 Kokila conducted inspection of the bus and issued Inspection Report under Ex.P-3 wherein she had stated that the accident was not caused due to mechanical d
Victim of accident cannot be held responsible for delay in registration of FIR.
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.
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 prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions were the direct cause of the accident, considering contributory negligence in criminal cases.
The main legal point established is that in cases of rash and negligent driving leading to fatal accidents, the court will assess the evidence, impact of the occurrence, and the driver's responsibili....
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.