Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Jasdeep Singh Kohli - Appellant
Versus
The State of Nct. of Delhi - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 209 of 2015 & Crl. M.A. No. 5071 of 2015
Decided On : 19-01-2016
For the Appellants :Sudarshan Rajan, Anshul Wadhwa and Archit Arora, Advocates
For the Respondents: Amit Gupta, APP and Jargup Singh, SI.
Driving at a high speed after consuming liquor, with knowledge of the likely consequences, may constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(II) IPC.
Headnote:
304(II) - Offences under Section 304(II) /323/325 IPC - 304(II), 323, 325
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order charging him for offences under Sections 304(II) /323/325 IPC, arguing that he should be charged under Section 304A IPC instead.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's act of driving at a high speed after consuming liquor, resulting in the death of an individual, could be attributed to knowledge of the likely consequences, and thus, charged him under Section 304(II) IPC.
Issues: Prima facie case for an offence under Section 304(II) IPC, attribution of knowledge to the petitioner, reliability of evidence, and framing of charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to establish that driving at a high speed after consuming liquor, with knowledge of the likely consequences, may fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(II) IPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order in framing charges under Sections 304(II) /323/325 IPC was upheld.
S.P. GARG, J.
1. Present Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 10.03.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which he was charged for commission of offences under Sections 304(II) /323/325 IPC. The revision petition is contested by the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that no prima- facie case is made out for an offence under Section 304(II) IPC and at the most, the petitioner can be presumed to have committed the offence under Section 304A IPC for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which caused the death of an individual. Section 304(II) IPC requires knowledge on the part of a person that the only probable consequence of his act would be 'culpable homicide'. In the instant case, the petitioner was not aware if the victim was sleeping on the pavement / divider. The petitioner was orient, conscious and fit to make statement at the time of his medical examination and was not under the influence of liquor. FSL report clearly demonstrates that no alcohol was found in his blood. Accident occurred primarily due to mechanical defects in the vehicle. Reliance has been placed on 'Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra', , 1971 (3) SCC 930; 'state vs. Sanjeev Nanda', , 2012 (8) SCC 450; 'state of Gujarat vs. Haidarali Kalubhai', , 1976 (1) SCC 889; 'Prabhakaran vs. State of Kerala', , 2007 (14) SCC 269 & 'Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra', , 2012 (2) SCC 648.
3. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that at the time of consideration of charge, only prima-facie view is to be taken into consideration. The petitioner, who was driving the vehicle in an extremely fast and dangerous manner could foresee the natural and probable consequences of his acts. Reliance has been placed on 'Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat', , 2005 (7) SCC 550; 'state of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh', , 2005 (7) SCC 408; 'Vijay Pal vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ', , 2015 (4) SCC 749; 'Jagriti Devi vs. State of H.P.', , 2009 (14) SCC 771; 'Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra', , 2012 (2) SCC 648; 'state of Gujarat vs. Haidarali Kalubhai', , 1976 (1) SCC 889 & 'state vs. Sanjeev Nanda', , 2012 (8) SCC 450.
4. The occurrence took place at around 02.00 a.m. (mid night) when no heavy traffic is expected to be on the roads. HC Bharat Bhushan and Const. Vikram on patrolling duty on motorcycle bearing No. DL-1SN- 5926 were overtaken by the vehicle driven by the petitioner. HC Bharat Bhushan immediately perceived that the vehicle being driven at a very high speed was sure to cause someone's death. Soon thereafter, the vehicle struck against a divider. Its impact was so heavy that the vehicle overturned in the air and again struck against the divider. This time, it hit the victim sleeping on the divider. The said individual, due to impact, flew in the air and fell on the other side of the road and died instantaneously. Engine of the car came out and fell 25 - 30 feet away. In the said occurrence, a boy aged around 11 - 12 years also sustained injuries. The petitioner and other occupants of the car namely Karanveer Singh, Abhishek Malhotra, Abhishek Gogia and Shival Nagpal also suffered injuries; Abhishek Gogia's injury was grievous. The petitioner on medical examination at Jeewan Mala Hospital at around 02.25 a.m. was found having smell of alcohol. It was still present at the time of medical examination at 05.10 a.m. at Lady Harding Medical College. Other occupants in the car were also found to have consumed alcohol. One bottle of Royal Stag whisky was also seized from the vehicle. From these peculiar circumstances, it can be inferred that the vehicle was being driven at a dangerous speed by the petitioner after consuming liquor. The petitioner was unable to have control over the speed of the vehicle and it caused the death of an in
