- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Death By Negligence | Trial Court...
Death By Negligence | Trial Court Must Apply Mind To Determine Whether Charges U/S 304A IPC Can Be Added In Cases Of Motor Vehicle Accidents
Tellmy Jolly
17 Jan 2024 10:05 AM GMT
The Kerala High Court has held that when trial courts frame charges in deaths involving motor vehicle accidents, they should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A IPC is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 IPC.It was also held that a conviction under section 304 A IPC would not be rendered unsustainable or illegal on an omission to...
The Kerala High Court has held that when trial courts frame charges in deaths involving motor vehicle accidents, they should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A IPC is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 IPC.
It was also held that a conviction under section 304 A IPC would not be rendered unsustainable or illegal on an omission to mention terms like Section 304A of the IPC and the words 'rashly or negligently in the charges framed against the accused.
In the instant case, the accused was charged under Section 304 IPC (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and was convicted under Section 304 A IPC (causing death by negligence).
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar relying upon Apex Court decisions, stated that no prejudice was caused to the appellant and that a mere defect in the language, narration or form of charges would not render the conviction unsustainable.
“In the context of Section 464 of the Code it was held that mere defect in the language, or in narration or in the form of charge would not render a conviction unsustainable, provided the accused is not prejudiced thereby. It was further held that if ingredients of the Section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed, then conviction for that offence can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said Section has not been mentioned in the charge”, the Court stated.
Furthermore, Justice Ajithkumar stated that when the Courts were framing charges in deaths involving motor vehicle accidents, it should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A IPC is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 IPC.
“All the same, every court while framing a charge in cases of death involving use of motor vehicles and a final report is filed alleging offence under Section 304 of the IPC, the trial court is obliged to apply mind and decide whether an alternative charge for an offence punishable under Section 304A is also to be framed as provided in Section 221 of the Code. “
The appellant had approached the Court challenging his conviction under Section 304 A IPC, when he was tried for an offence under Section 304 IPC by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The appellant who was a bus driver was charged under Section 304 IPC for causing the death of a pedestrian by allegedly driving with the knowledge that he would likely cause the death of passengers or pedestrians.
On finding that the rash and negligent driving of the appellant resulted in the death of a pedestrian, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 304A IPC.
The appellant contended that it was illegal and impermissible to convict him under Section 304 A when he was charged for an offence under Section 304 IPC. It was argued that the Sessions Court convicted him under Section 304A IPC for rash and negligent driving since it found that there was no evidence to convict him for culpable homicide. He relied upon the decisions in Benny v. State of Kerala (1991), Binish v. State of Kerala (2008) and Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of U.P. and another (2008) to support his contentions.
The Court on perusing the charge framed against the appellant observed that the terms Section 304 A of the IPC and the word, rashly or negligently were not mentioned. The Court stated that the ingredients of an offence under Section 304 A IPC were stated and brought to the notice of the appellant. It thus stated that Section 464 of CrPC would be attracted for the omission in framing the charges and held thus:
“Therefore, at the best, there is a defect in framing the charge by not specifically stating Section 304 A of the IPC and the word, rashly or negligently.”
Relying upon Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012), the Court stated that no failure of justice or prejudice would be caused to the accused if the accused was fully made aware of the charges against him. In Alister Antony (supra), the accused who was charged for offences in Sections 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 338 IPC (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) was convicted under Section 304 A (causing death by negligence) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others).
The Court observed that a mere defect in the language, narration or form of charges would not render the conviction unsustainable if the ingredients of sections were obvious and implicit in the charges that were framed. It further stated that in such cases, the conviction could be sustained irrespective of the fact that the section was not mentioned in the charge.
Referring to Section 221 CrPC (where it is doubtful what offence has been committed), the Court stated that the appellant can be convicted under Section 304A IPC.
Considering the gravity of the offence, the Court observed that the sentence imposed under Section 304 A IPC was not excessive. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: Advocate S Nirmal Kumar
Counsel for the respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
Case title: Renjith Raj v State, Represented By CI of Police
Case number: CRL.APPEAL NO. 957 OF 2018
