Criminal liability under Section 304A IPC requires clear evidence linking negligence directly to the cause of death.

O R D E R

The second accused in C.C No.2352/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid case. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 304A I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:

On 06.11.2015 at about 00:45 hrs, a Tata Sumo vehicle driven by a person by name Krishna Prasad (1st accused) through Ernakulam - Thrissur National Highway 566 swerved away from the road and overturned into a waterlogged area resulting in the death of seven persons including the aforesaid person by name Krishna Prasad. The accident is said to have happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the first accused Krishna Prasad. As against the petitioner herein, who has been arraigned in his capacity as the Chief Operating Officer, G.I.P.L, Toll Plaza, Paliyakkara, the allegation is that the failure to erect concrete pillars, signal boards and sufficient electric lights in that area, has resulted in the aforesaid accident. The Project Director of National Highway Authority of India, Palakkad has been arraigned as the third accused in this case. It is alleged that as per the terms of agreement between the National Highway Authority of India and the G.I.P.L Toll Plaza, the latter company was required to erect the necessary signal boards, concrete pillars and electric lights by the sides of the National Highway to avert accidents. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent / de facto complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. As already stated above, the petitioner herein is arraigned as the second accused in his capacity as the Chief Operating Officer of G.I.P.L Toll Plaza, Paliyakkara which was said to have entered into an agreement with the National Highway Authority of India for the construction of roads with adequate safeguards to avoid accidents at the places including the place where the accident involved in this case took place. However, the final report filed by the investigating agency is hopelessly silent as to the nature of the obligation or liability on the part of the petitioner to oversee the road construction and the responsibility to erect signal boards, concrete pillars, electrical lights etc by the sides of the roads so constructed. In the absence of specific contentions in the above regard about the liability of the petitioner to supervise and ensure the safety measures relating to installation of signal boards, barricades etc by the sides of the National Highway, he cannot be fastened with the criminal liability under Section 304A I.P.C for the omission to make such structures by the side of the National Highway at the place where the accident involved in this case happened.

5. Another thing to be noted is that, even according to the prosecution, the accident involved in this case occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first accused who also lost his life in that accident. There is no case for the prosecution that the vehicle was being driven by the first accused with due diligence, and that it happened to swerve away from the National Highway to the property by the side of the road and to nose-dive into a waterbody only because of the absence of concrete pillars, signal boards and sufficient electric light at the place of the incident. Going by the indications in the final report, the accident would have happened with the said vehicle hitting against the concre