The court highlighted that charges for culpable homicide require demonstrable knowledge of likely fatal consequences, leading to a directive for lesser charges.

O R D E R

The accused in S.C.No.827 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. The Sessions Court framed a charge against him for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 185 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988. The petitioner in this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) seeks to set aside the said order dated 19.02.2019 framing the charge.

2. A pedestrian, Sri.John, died as a result of the hit by an autorickshaw. A speeding car hit that autorickshaw and consequent swerving resulted its rear side dashing the pedestrian. The driver and the passengers in the autorickshaw also sustained injuries. It was 5.45 a.m. On 19.10.2014, while the autorickshaw was being driven by its driver, CW1 with three passengers, CWs.2 to 4 in the rear seat. The car driven by the petitioner in an enormous speed dashed against the autorickshaw. The autorickshaw went and hit a lorry stationed there. While the autorickshaw swerved towards the right as an impact of the hit by the car, its rear side happened to hit Sri.John, who was walking west to east along the southern side of the road. He succumbed to the consequent injuries. At the time of incident the petitioner was allegedly drunk. Based on the said allegations, a final report was filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Traffic Police West, Kochi City, stating that acts of the accused amounted to the aforesaid offences.

3. The Sessions Court accepted the plea of the prosecution that there was ground for presuming that the petitioner had committed the aforementioned offences. The impugned charge was accordingly framed. The contention of the petitioner is that allegations in the final report and the materials produced therewith would not make out offences under Sections 304 and 308 of the IPC . It is further contended both those offences together cannot legally be charged.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. If a person by his act causes the death of another with the knowledge that he is likely by such act would cause the death, the same amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 of the IPC . Such an act, which does not amount to a murder, but if it is established that the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause the death, but the wrongdoer had no intention to cause the death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence that constitutes is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 , Part II of the . When that is the nature of the wrongdoer and that resulted the death of the victim, the charge shall ordinarily be under , Part II of the . But, in that set of facts, a charge under Section 308 of the also would be impermissible. Of course, if a distinct offence of an attempt to commit culpable homicide occurred in the same transaction, the charge may contain the offence under of the also. In this case, the allegations do not make out a distinct offence punishable under of the . So, the charge should not have contained the offence punishable under of the .

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that death of Sri.John could not have expected even remotely by the petitioner. Whereas, it is contended, the death was only a coincidental consequence of the event and therefore, knowledge that by the act of the petitioner of driving the car in a high speed as alleged by the prosecution would likely to have caused death of Sri.John cannot be attributed to the petitioner.

7. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, is that the fact that the car was driven at an enormous speed by the petitioner in a drunken stage necessarily led to the inference that he had sufficient knowledge of the obvious consequence of causing death of per