Negligent parking resulting in fatal consequences can be grounds for criminal liability under Section 304A IPC.

O R D E R

The order dated 22.08.2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, in C.M.P.No.4449/2017 in C.C.No.288/2016, declining the request of the petitioner/first accused under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC’), to stop the proceedings against him in respect of the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, City Traffic Police Station, Edappally East Police Station filed final report in Crime No.442/2016 of that Police Station, arraigning the petitioner herein as the first accused for the commission of offences under Sections 279, 336 & 304A IPC . The allegation against the petitioner is that his rash and negligent act of parking a car at a slope surface without sufficient precautions, resulted in the rolling of that vehicle in the backward direction, and hitting a person who fell into the road and got run over by a tipper lorry through his both legs. The incident happened at about 01:00 p.m., on 30.01.2016. The victim lost his life at about 08:45 p.m, on the same day due to the injuries sustained in that accident.

3. In the petition before the learned Magistrate, the revision petitioner contended that the death of the victim cannot be termed as the direct consequence of the alleged negligent act attributed against him. According to the revision petitioner, the victim died as a result of the internal injuries like hematoma and hemorrhage which were not due to the consequences of the acts attributed against him. The learned Magistrate declined to accept the request of the revision petitioner in the above regard, stating the reason that the question whether there was any direct nexus between the act of the accused and the death of the pedestrian can be evaluated only after evidence is recorded.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. As already stated above, the prosecution records would reveal that the victim fell down to the road since the car negligently parked by the revision petitioner rolled down in the reverse direction and hit that person. It is as a result of the aforesaid fall of the victim to the road that a tipper lorry which passed thereby happened to run over his lower limbs. The postmortem report of the victim indicated the cause of death as the head injury suffered by him. Thus, it is obvious that the victim suffered head injury as a result of his fall after having been hit by the car of the petitioner which rolled backwards due to the failure of the petitioner to take adequate precautions, while parking that vehicle in a slope surface. That being so, there is absolutely no point in the argument that the victim suffered death not due to the negligent act attributed to the revision petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, by relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSuleman Rahiman Mulani & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1968 SC 829 ] and Ambalal D Bhatt v. State of Gujrat [ 1972 KHC 608 ] argued that the criminal liability under Section 304A IPC cannot be fastened upon a person in the absence of evidence which points to the fact that the death of the victim was the direct consequence of the negligent act attributed against the accused. The legal proposition in the above regard is trite. As far as the present case is concerned, the final report and the accompanying records relied on by the prosecution would give the indication that the victim suffered death due to his fall into the road, after being hit by the vehicle which the revision petitioner negligently parked in a slope surface without taking sufficient pr