Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
WAFA NAJIM @ WAFA FIROZ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 55 2023
Liability - Charges of Culpable Homicide - IPC Sections 304, 201; MV Act Sections 184, 185, 188; PDPP Act Section 3 - Court examined the evidence against the accused, emphasizing the knowledge of risk in driving under influence, leading to modified charges.
Fact of the Case:
A journalist was killed when a motorist collided with his bike. The driver, a civil service officer, was accused of wrongdoing, including driving under the influence. The court discharged him of serious charges but agreed to consider lesser offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined sufficient evidence existed for charges under sections 304 and 201 IPC due to the driver's reckless conduct, but found insufficient grounds for proving intoxication without a medical report for section 185 MV Act.
Issues: Whether evidence supports charges of culpable homicide against the first accused and whether the second accused can be charged with abetting the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a discharge for sections 304 and 201 IPC was improper as there's prima facie evidence of culpable homicide, while the absence of a medical report for intoxication disallowed charges under section 185 MV Act.
Final Decision: Partial acceptance of the state's appeal; first accused discharged from serious charges, second accused from abetment charge.
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 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 laborat
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
