Whether Driver Had 'Knowledge' To Cause Death Under S.304 IPC Is A Matter For Trial, Not Discharge: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-16

Law Updates Made Simple.

Driver's 'Knowledge' in Fatal Accident Case a Matter for Trial, Not Discharge: Kerala High Court

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a bus driver, upholding a trial court's decision to proceed with charges under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder) in a fatal road accident case. The bench, led by Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath , ruled that the question of whether the driver acted with the "knowledge" that his actions could cause death is a matter of evidence to be decided during trial and cannot be prejudged at the discharge stage.

Case Background

The case, Rajan V.K. v. State of Kerala , originates from a fatal accident on December 7, 2016. The petitioner, Rajan V.K., was accused of driving a bus at high speed, resulting in a collision with a motorcycle. The motorcyclist, Arjun Karun, sustained severe injuries and subsequently passed away.

The prosecution framed charges under Section 304 of the IPC, alleging the driver had the requisite intention and knowledge that his high-speed driving was likely to cause death. Additional charges were filed under Sections 134 (a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and filed an application for discharge, which the trial court dismissed. The present revision petition was filed in the High Court challenging that dismissal.

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioner's counsel, Smt. Veena Hari, argued that the facts, even if accepted entirely, do not constitute an offence under Section 304 IPC. The counsel highlighted a significant contradiction between the First Information Report (FIR) and the final police report. The FIR, based on a statement from the deceased's uncle (a non-eyewitness), claimed the bus and motorcycle were traveling in opposite directions. In contrast, the final report stated both vehicles were moving in the same direction. This discrepancy, it was argued, weakened the prosecution's case to the point where the grave charge of culpable homicide was unsustainable.

Opposing the petition, the counsels for the state and the deceased's family contended that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest the driver operated the vehicle with the knowledge that his actions could lead to a fatal outcome. They argued that the contradiction between the FIR and the final report was not fatal to the case, as the FIR was lodged by someone who did not witness the incident.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, after examining the records, sided with the prosecution's view that the matter required a full trial. The court emphasized that the core legal question—whether the petitioner drove with the knowledge that such driving could cause death—is a substantive issue that can only be determined by evaluating evidence presented during the trial.

In a key excerpt from the order, the court observed:

"It is true that this is a case of accident. However, the question whether the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with the knowledge or intention that such driving may cause death of a person is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. At this juncture, it cannot be prejudged whether there was intention or knowledge."

The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the contradiction between the FIR and the final report, stating, "The FIR was registered based on the statement given by the uncle of the deceased who was not an eye witness. Therefore, the said contradiction cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case."

Final Verdict

Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to raise all contentions during the trial phase. It further directed the trial court to proceed with the case without being influenced by any observations made in the High Court's order, ensuring a fair and impartial trial based on the evidence adduced.