IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Sreeram Venkittaraman, S/o Venkittaraman – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.837 of 2022 & Crl.Rev.Pet. No.55 of 2023
Decided on : 13-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304, 201, 107 - Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 - Section 3(1)(2) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 184, 185 and 188 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 59 - Hit by a motorcar – Culpable homicide - Journalist on a motorbike was knocked down by a speeding car on arterial road – Perusal of statement of witnesses and other materials collected do not reveal any material pointing to second accused having permitted first accused to drive car - Para 25.
Finding of the Court :
Vehicle involved in accident admittedly belonged to second accused - Prosecution alleges that second accused had committed offence of abetment by providing car to first accused for driving - A perusal of statement of witnesses and other materials collected do not reveal any material pointing to second accused having permitted first accused to drive car - Providing facility for driving a vehicle without anything more cannot amount to abetment - It is not enough that an act on part of alleged abettor happens to facilitate commission of crime - Court is of opinion that offence of section 188 of MV Act cannot be charged against second accused in nature of materials collected by investigation - Therefore she is entitled to be discharged for offence - Order of learned Sessions Judge refusing to discharge second accused is liable to be set aside.
Result: Crl.R.P allowed.
ORDER :
In the early hours of 03.08.2019, a journalist on a motorbike was knocked down by a speeding car on the arterial road of the capital city of Kerala. The motorist Sri.K.M.Basheer was hit from behind by a motorcar, killing him almost instantaneously. The driver of the offending vehicle attempted to wriggle out of the situation by alleging that he was not driving and that the driver was a lady seated beside him. However, eyewitnesses identified a male as the person behind the wheels. Soon the driver of the car was identified as Sri.Sreeram Venkittaraman IAS -a civil service officer of Kerala cadre.
2. The police immediately reached the spot and took the driver of the car to the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and thereafter commenced an investigation and later filed a charge sheet arraying Sri.Sreeram Venkittaraman as the first accused, and the passenger in the car as the second accused. The offences under sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and section 3(1)(2) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'the PDPP Act') apart from sections 184, 185 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') were alleged to have been committed by the accused and after committal it was numbered as S.C. No. 595 of 2021 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent in Crl.R.P. No.837 of 2022 is the first accused, while revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 55 of 2023 is the second accused.
3. The prosecution alleges that the first accused was the driver and the second accused the owner of a car bearing registration No.KL-01-BM-360. According to the prosecution on 03.08.2019, at around 01.00 AM, the first accused drove the aforesaid car in an inebriated condition under the influence of alcohol through the Kowdiar-Museum road at Thiruvananthapuram with the knowledge that such act would endanger human life and dashed the vehicle against the motorbike driven by the deceased, from behind, and the driver of the bike succumbed to his injuries. The accused is thus alleged to have committed the offences.
4. Subsequently, both accused filed separate applications for discharge. While the first accused filed Crl.M.P. No.2325 of 2022, the second accused filed Crl.M.P. No.1823 of 2021. Despite the objections of the State, the Sessions Court, by the impugned order discharged both the accused for the offences under sections 304 and 201 of the IPC, section 3(1)(2) of the PDPP Act and section 185 of the MV Act. However, the court found that there were sufficient materials to frame a charge against the first accused under sections 279 and 304A IPC apart from section 184 of the MV Act. As against the second accused, the court found materials to frame a charge under section 188 r/w section 184 of the MV Act. Since the offences mentioned above are triable by a Magistrate, the case was transferred to the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate under section 228(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.
5. Aggrieved by the discharge of the first accused under section 304 IPC and other allied sections, the State has preferred Crl.R.P. No.837 of 2022 while the second accused has preferred Crl.R.P. No.55 of 2023 for not allowing her discharge even under section 188 of the MV Act. Though the brother of the deceased Basheer has preferred W.P.(Crl.) No.789 of 2022, seeking CBI investigation, the said writ petition was, by consensus, delinked from these two cases, to be heard separately.
6. Sri. S.U.Nazar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, vehemently contended that the investigation had adduced sufficient materials in the form of CW1 to CW7 apart from CW29, CW74, CW75 and document No.11 to frame a charge under section 304 IPC and other offences alleged in the final report. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the first accused, who is a highly influential IAS officer and a medical doctor by graduation, had manipulated and prevented a laboratory te
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648
Prabhakaran v Excise Circle Inspector (1992) 2 KLT 860
Section 107 IPC deals with offence of abetment.
Driving under the influence of alcohol and on the wrong side of the road constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying conviction under IPC Section 304 Part II.
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.
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.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of rash and negligent driving and the influence of alcohol, and failure to properly frame charges can vitiate the trial process.
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....
Joining an inebriated driver for a late-night drive can constitute instigation and lead to criminal liability under Section 111 and Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code.
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.