SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33262

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
SREERAM VENKITTARAMAN – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 837/2022



Culpable homicide can be established through knowledge of likely consequences in cases of reckless driving; mere vehicle ownership does not imply abetment without evidence of intent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304, 201, 279, 304A - Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 - Section 3(1)(2) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 184, 185, 188 - Discharge applications filed by accused in a fatal accident case - The Sessions Court discharged the first accused under sections 304 and 201 IPC, but found sufficient grounds for charges under sections 279 and 304A IPC, and section 188 of the MV Act against the second accused - The State contended that the first accused was driving under influence and manipulated evidence - The court held that absence of a medical report does not preclude charging under section 304 IPC if other evidence suggests culpability. (Paras 4, 22, 23)

(B) Culpable homicide - Knowledge versus intention - The court clarified that culpable homicide not amounting to murder can be established based on knowledge of the likely consequences of reckless or negligent acts, particularly in cases of drunken driving. (Paras 12, 14)

(C) Abetment - The court determined that mere ownership of a vehicle does not constitute abetment unless there is evidence of intentional aiding or conspiracy. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
A journalist was killed in an accident involving a speeding car driven by an IAS officer, who was alleged to be intoxicated. The state filed a revision petition against the discharge of the first accused for serious charges.

Findings of Court:
The discharge of the first accused for sections 304 and 201 IPC was set aside; the second accused was discharged for section 188 of the MV Act.

Issues: Whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed against the accused under the relevant IPC and MV Act sections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a medical report does not negate the possibility of charges under section 304 IPC, and that mere ownership of a vehicle does not imply abetment.

Result: Crl.R.P. No.837 of 2022 is allowed in part; Crl.R.P. No.55 of 2023 is allowed.

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 labo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top