Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Rajkumar - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.No.648 of 2017
Decided on : 08-12-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - Culpable Homicide and Negligence - Sections 304(II), 308 of IPC; Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act; Section 151 of the Indian Railways Act - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding culpable homicide and negligence under the IPC, emphasizing that for a conviction under Section 304(II), the prosecution must establish that the accused had knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death. The court highlighted the necessity of gross negligence for a conviction under Section 304-A IPC. The lack of conclusive evidence regarding the accused's speed, signal violations, and mobile phone usage led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a train driver, was involved in a collision between two trains resulting in 12 deaths and numerous injuries. He was charged with multiple offenses under the IPC and the Indian Railways Act, primarily for driving at excessive speed and using a mobile phone while operating the train.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not conclusively establish the appellant's guilt regarding the alleged violations of speed limits and signal adherence. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove gross negligence or culpable homicide.
Issues: Whether the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or gross negligence under the IPC and the Indian Railways Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 304(II) IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death. The court also emphasized that negligence must be gross to constitute an offense under Section 304-A IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 21.08.2017 in S.C.No.66 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.
2 (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused was employed as a Train Driver of Indian Railways; that on 13.09.2011, while he was employed as a Loco-Pilot/Motor Man of the Train No.66017 plying between Chennai Beach Railway Station to Vellore Cantonment, at about 9.21pm, while he was driving the said train, between KM 74/12 and 74/14, he contacted a Motor Man viz., Ravi/his friend (PW45), over mobile phone and had driven the train in an excessive speed of 97 kmph in utter and gross violation of the speed limit of 75 kmph, although, there were yellow signal at Melpakkam Railway Station and red signal at Signal No.734, and caused the collision with train No.56007 from behind, which was going from Arakkonam to Katpadi and was moving at a speed of 20kmph; that as a result of that collision,12 persons died on the spot, 71 passengers sustained severe injuries ie. 18 persons sustained grievous injuries and 53 persons sustained simple injuries; and that the total loss caused to the Railways Department was to the tune of Rs.2,20,00,000/-.
(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that after the accident, PW1 lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] to the respondent herein, on the basis of which the PW73 registered the FIR [Ex.P78] in Cr.No.623 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of IPC r/w 154 of the Indian Railways Act.
(iii) Thereafter, PW74 took up the investigation, and examined the witnesses, went to the scene of the occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2), and a rough sketch (Ex.P79). He collected the money purse, PAN card, ID card and a few other material objects from the scene of occurrence. He conducted an inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P80). Thereafter, he examined the injured passengers and recorded their statements. On the same day, he collected the call records pertaining to the mobile No.8656017733 used by the accused at the time of the occurrence. On 23.09.2011, he obtained details regarding the speed at which the train driven by the appellant proceeded on the day of the accident. On 07.10.2011, he examined one M.K.Subramaniam [PW66], the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations) and obtained a statement from him, marked as Ex.P63, wherein he stated about the signal aspects at the stations and level crossings on the day of the accident.
(iv) Thereafter, PW74 altered the offences to Sections 323, 324, 326 and 304(II) of IPC r/w Section 154 of the Indian Railways Act and sent the alteration report [Ex.P82] to the Court. After examination of all other witnesses and after completion of the investigation, he filed a final report on 01.03.2012, against the appellant for the offence under Sections 304(II), 308 of the IPC r/w Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred as to the 'TNPPDL Act') and Section 151 of the Indian Railways Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, in PRC No.1 of 2012.
(v) On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.66 of 2012 and was made over to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, at Ranipet.
(vi) The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge framed the charge under all the offences, viz., under 304(II) IPC (11 counts) and 308 IPC (72 counts), and also under Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act r/w Section 151 of the Indian Railways Act.
(vii) The charge framed by the said Court on 06.11.2012, broadly states that on 13.09.2011 at around 9.24pm between Melpakkam and Chitheri Railway Station, the appellant, contrary to the circulars issued b
The prosecution must establish gross negligence or knowledge of likely death for a conviction under Sections 304(II) and 304-A IPC, which was not proven in this case.
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....
Conviction for negligent driving requires substantial evidence beyond mere speed; a driver cannot be held liable under IPC without evidence proving rashness and negligence distinctly.
Victim of accident cannot be held responsible for delay in registration of FIR.
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.
Interference with acquittal only if perverse or ignoring material evidence; driver not negligent if pedestrian suddenly crosses road with no specific proof of excessive speed beyond vague 'high speed....
Prosecution must establish negligence beyond reasonable doubt; mere speed does not equate to rashness or negligence in driving.
The prosecution must establish that the accused was driving the vehicle in a manner that endangered human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, as per the relevant sections ....
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
