Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 857
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN, J.
David and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State by its Inspector of Police, Thalavadi Police Station, Erode Dist. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.720 of 2017
Decided On : 12-01-2024
For the Appellants : Mr. N. Manokaran.
For the Respondent: Mr. E. Raj Thilak, APP (Crl.Side).
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of vehicular accidents resulting in death, the distinction between 'knowledge' and 'negligence' is crucial for determining liability under the IPC, particularly in the context of Sections 304 Part II and 304-A.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - NEGLIGENCE AND LIABILITY - IPC SECTIONS 279, 338, 304 PART II, 304-A, 35, 37 - The court discussed the applicability of Sections 279, 338, and 304 Part II of the IPC, focusing on the definitions of rashness and negligence. It interpreted Section 304 Part II as requiring knowledge of likely death, which was not established. The court found the appellants guilty under Section 304-A for causing death by negligence, emphasizing the need for due care in driving, especially in a school playground. The decision was influenced by the evidence of the injured witness and the circumstances of the accident.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were involved in a vehicular accident in a school playground, resulting in the death of a student, Sandhya, and injuries to her friend, Kusuma. The first appellant was learning to drive from the second appellant when the incident occurred. The prosecution charged them under various sections of the IPC for rash and negligent driving leading to death and injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the appellants had permission to drive in the playground, they failed to exercise due care, leading to the accident. The evidence did not support a charge of knowledge required for Section 304 Part II, but established negligence under Section 304-A. The court modified the sentences based on mitigating circumstances.
Issues: Whether the appellants were guilty of the charges under Sections 279, 338, and 304 Part II of the IPC, and whether the evidence supported a finding of negligence or knowledge in causing the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the culpable mental state of 'knowledge' is distinct from 'negligence' or 'rashness.' The prosecution failed to prove knowledge for Section 304 Part II, but the actions of the appellants constituted negligence under Section 304-A. The court also clarified the applicability of Sections 35 and 37 regarding joint liability.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the convictions to include Section 304-A and reducing the sentences to the time already served, along with substantial fines imposed for compensation to the victims' families.
JUDGMENT :
Sunder Mohan, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 07.11.2017 in S.C. No.91 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :
(i) During the relevant point in time, one Sandhya was studying in the 10th standard at Divine Vidhyalaya Matriculation School, Thottakajanur. On 07.1.2013 at about 5.45 PM, while she was walking in the playground after a special class in the school, the first appellant, who had a learner's licence and who was learning to drive the vehicle from the second appellant, came in a Mahindra Max Jeep bearing registration No.TN-36-V-8551 in a rash and negligent manner, knowing fully well that their act would endanger the lives of the school children and dashed against both the said Sandhya and her friend Kusuma - P.W.2, as a result of which, the said Sandhya sustained fatal injuries and the said Kusuma sustained grievous injuries.
(ii) On learning that the said Sandhya met with an accident, her father - P.W.1 lodged a complaint, which was recorded by P.W.14 - the then Sub-Inspector of Police of the respondent police station. On receipt of the complaint - Ex.P.1, P.W.14 registered the first information report - Ex.P.6 in Crime No.6 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 279, 338, and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC).
(iii) After registration of the first information report, P.W.18 took up the investigation, conducted an inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdhars, and prepared the inquest report - Ex.P.7. Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased for postmortem examination. P.W.11 - the doctor conducted the postmortem and issued the postmortem certificate - Ex.P.3. Further, P.W.18 went to the scene of the occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar - Ex.P.8.
(iv) After examination of some of the prosecution witnesses, P.W.18 handed over the investigation to P.W.19. Subsequently, P.W.19 continued the investigation, examined the other prosecution witnesses, and filed the final report against the appellants for the offences under Sections 279, 338, and 304 Part II of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam.
(v) On appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.91 of 2016 and was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, for trial. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 279, 338, and 304 Part II of the IPC as against the appellants, and when questioned, the appellants pleaded 'not guilty'.
(vi) The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The appellants have not examined any witnesses or marked any documents. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found (i) the first appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 338, and 304 Part II of the IPC; and (ii) the second appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 279 read with 35, 338 read with 35, and 304 Part II read with 35 of the IPC and sentenced them as below:
| Against | Offence under IPC | Sentence imposed |
| 1st appellant | Section 279 | To undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month SI |
|
| Section 338 | To undergo 2 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months SI |
|
| Section 304 Part II | Section 304 Part II |
| The above sentences were directed to run concurrently | ||
| 2nd appellant | Sections 279 r/w 35 | To undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in def |
