Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Finil Biju, S/o. Biju P. Saimon – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 136 Of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2023
Discharge - Culpable Homicide - Sections 227, 279, 304, 304A IPC - The court held that the petitioner ought to have been charged under Section 304A IPC instead of Section 304 IPC. The rejection of the application for discharge as far as Section 304 IPC is concerned is therefore unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of causing the death of a police constable due to rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle. The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C, stating that there was no reason to frame a charge against him under Section 304 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's offence fell within the ambit of Section 304A IPC and not Section 304 IPC. The rejection of the application for discharge as far as Section 304 IPC is concerned was deemed unsustainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be charged under Section 304 IPC or Section 304A IPC for causing the death of a police constable due to rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to constitute an offence under Section 304 IPC, it is necessary that the accused should have an intention to cause death, intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death, or knowledge that he is likely to cause death by such act. The court also considered the time of the incident and the absence of evidence indicating the petitioner's intention to cause death.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was partly allowed, and the petitioner was discharged from the offence under Section 304 IPC. The court directed the framing of a charge against the petitioner under Section 304A IPC.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a petitioner accused of causing the death of a police constable due to rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle during night hours. The incident occurred at approximately 1:45 am, and the petitioner was charged under Sections 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (!) (!) .
The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), asserting that there was no sufficient basis to frame a charge under Section 304 IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide. The petitioner argued that his actions did not demonstrate an intention to cause death or knowledge that death was likely to occur (!) (!) .
The court examined whether the appropriate charge should be under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide) or Section 304A IPC (causing death by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide). The court found that the facts indicated the offence fell within Section 304A IPC, as there was no evidence of the petitioner’s intention or knowledge to cause death, particularly given the late-night, deserted road circumstances (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that for an offence under Section 304 IPC, it is necessary to establish that the accused had the intention to cause death, or the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death, or had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. Since these elements were not demonstrated in this case, the appropriate charge was under Section 304A IPC (!) (!) .
The court held that the rejection of the discharge application under Section 304 IPC was unsustainable and partly allowed the revision petition. Consequently, the petitioner was discharged from the offence under Section 304 IPC and the court directed that a charge be framed against him under Section 304A IPC (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that the determination of the appropriate charge depends on the accused’s intention or knowledge regarding the likelihood of causing death, and that rash or negligent acts resulting in death without such intent or knowledge should be prosecuted under Section 304A IPC [judgement_subject].
These points encapsulate the legal reasoning and final decision in the case, focusing on the correct classification of the offence based on the facts and legal standards.
ORDER :
The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the accused in SC No.87/2020. In the said case, the prosecution alleged that on 03.07.2018 at about 1.45 am, in front of the Private Bus Stand, Nagampadam, Kottayam, the petitioner/accused on account of his rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-05AR-6350, that too at enormous speed, hit against a Police Constable attached to the Kottayam East Police Station, who was engaged in night patrol duty and caused his death. The petitioner was chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 IPC.
3. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.2833/2022 stating that there is absolutely no reason to frame charge against him under Section 304 IPC. Since he had no knowledge that his act would cause the death of the deceased, the charge under Section 304 IPC will not stand against the petitioner. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the petitioner drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed at night and hit a Police Officer who was discharging his official duties. A prudent man never drives a vehicle at a high speed especially at night. The knowledge of the accused under Section 299 IPC is a question of fact. It can be ascertained at trial only. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Crl. M. Application for discharge as per order dated 09.01.2023. It is against the said order dated 09.01.2023 that the petitioner has filed the Criminal Revision Petition invoking Sections 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C.
4. The counsel for the revision petitioner urged that the petitioner did not drive the motorcycle rashly or negligently. Assuming that there is rash and negligent driving, only an offence under Section 279 IPC can be alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Even if such negligent driving results in death, only an offence under Section 304A can be alleged. Section 304A provides that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either destruction for which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. When the Indian Penal Code provides for a specific offence and punishment for causing death by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, the prosecution is not justified in charging the petitioner under Section 304 IPC. The petitioner is therefore entitled to get discharge as far as the offence under Section 304 is concerned.
5. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others [AIR 1990 SC 1962], counsel for the petitioner argued that all that is called upon to consider at the stage of discharge is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and for this limited purpose, the court must weigh the materials on records as well as the documents relied on by the prosecution. In the case of the petitioner, there is no material to show that the petitioner has caused death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. Therefore, charge under Section 304 IPC is unsustainable.
6. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in somewhat similar circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of U.P. and another [AIR 2009 SC 125] has held that no summons could have been issued by the trial court against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.
7. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in Raju P.M. v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (1) KLD 811] and argued that a mere knowledge that there is a possibility of accident is not the required knowledge contemplated under Section 304 IPC to bring home a case of cu
AI
Culpable homicide requires proof of intention or knowledge; negligence alone suffices for charges under section 304-A of IPC.
Culpable homicide requires intention and knowledge, while section 304 - A IPC pertains to causing death by negligence.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's driving was rash or negligent to uphold a conviction under Section 304(A) IPC.
The trial Court may alter charges based on the evidence, determining appropriate charges during the course of proceedings.
Medical negligence does not constitute culpable homicide unless there is knowledge or intent of likely death; mere possibility does not satisfy the standard of culpability.
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.
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....
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
