HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
Rameshkumar Shankarlal Shah – Applicant
Vs.
State of Gujarat Others – Respondents
Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 304 of 2015
Decided On : 29-1-2016
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304 and 304-A – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – There is a fine distinction between Section 304 and Section 304A – Section 304A carves out cases where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act which does not amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder within meaning of Section 299 or culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 300, IPC – Section 304A excludes all ingredients of Section 299 as also of Section 300 – Where intention or knowledge is ‘motivating force’ of act complained of, Section 304A will have to make room for graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or amounting to murder as facts disclose – Section has application to those cases where there is neither intention to cause death nor knowledge that the act in all probability will cause death.
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304 and 304-A – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Moral culpability of recklessness is not located in a desire to cause harm – It resides in proximity of reckless state of mind to state of mind present when there is an intention to cause harm – There is a disregard for possible consequences--In order to hold existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence it shall have to be found out that rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely imminent – Element of criminality is introduced by accused having run risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences.
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing – Though it is open to High Court entertaining a petition under section 482 of Code to quash charges framed by trial court, same cannot be done by weighing correctness or sufficiency of evidence – In a case praying for quashing of charge, principle to be adopted by High Court should be that if entire evidence produced by prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not – Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at stage of trial.
Result – Special Criminal Application allowed.
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- original accused No. 2 has prayed for the following reliefs:
“9 (a) To allow this petition:
(b) Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the FIR at Annexure A being I-CR No. 54 of 2014 registered with Lunawada Police Station, Mehisagar, qua the petitioner.
(c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay the further proceedings of the FIR being I-CR No. 54 of 2014 registered with Lunawada Police Station, Mahisagar, qua the petitioner.
(d) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”
2. It appears that on 13th May, 2014, the petitioner herein and two other co-accused (accused No. 1 and accused No. 3) purchased the land bearing survey No. 498, part - 21 admeasuring 4047 sq. mtrs. by way of a registered Sale Deed.
3. On 23th May 2014, the accused No. 1 executed a Memorandum of Understanding for the development of the land with the accused No. 4 and accused No. 5. The accused No. 1, thereafter, preferred an application with the Central Gujarat Electricity Company.
4. On 26th May, 2014, the accused No. 1 preferred an application with the Central Electricity Company for shifting of the High Tension Electric Line passing over the property. On 9th June, 2014, the Electricity Company gave an estimate for shifting of the High Tension electric line to the accused No. 1.
5. On 1st July, 2014, the accused No. 1 made payment for shifting of the High Tension electric line to the Electricity Company.
6. The incident in question occurred on 19th July, 2014. It is the case of the prosecution that in the land in question, some excavation work was undertaken and the soil which was excavated was dumped in one part of the land. Since the soil was dumped, it became somewhat like a big heap. The deceased was passing through the land with his cattle. He entered the land with his cattle and is set to have climbed over the heap of soil which was dumped and got electrocuted by coming in contact with the High Tension electric line. On such accusation, the applicant herein is sought to be prosecuted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. I have heard Mr. I.H. Syed, the learned counsel appearing for applicant, Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. H.K Patel, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State of Gujarat.
8. In my view, even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is satisfied. I have considered this issue at length in the case of Girish Maganlal Pandya vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2942 of 2014 decided on 23rd March, 2015. In the said decision, I have considered the fine distinction between Section 304A i.e. rash or negligent act and Section 304 i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder. I quote the relevant observations as under:
“15. The relevant portion of Section 304 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
With if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
16. A plain reading of the above Section makes it clear that it is in two parts. The first part of the Section is generally referred to as “Section 304 Part-I” whereas the second part as “Section 304, Part-II”. It would thus, appear that if such bodily injury as is likely
Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs. State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC 125 – Relied.
Syed Akbar vs. State of Karnataka
Sushil Ansal vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation
Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla vs. State of Maharashtra
Kurban Hussein Mohem-medali Rangwala vs. State of Maharashtra
Suleman Rahiman Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra
Balachandra vs. State of Maharashtra
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.