Breaking: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Sessions Court Order Dropping Culpable Homicide Charges Against IAS Officer Sreeram Venkataraman

The Kerala High Court on Thursday set aside a Sessions Court order dropping culpable homicide charges against IAS Officer Sreeram Venkitaraman in the infamous road rage case. The order was however upheld to the extent it discharged Venkittaraman under Sections 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that relates to dangerous driving and drunken driving, and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "Driving vehicles after consuming alcohol can lead to temporary or partial impairment of cognitive faculties. This disability can lead to error in judgment relating to distance calculation, distinguishing objects, speed control and even other factors that are essential for safe driving. Blurred vision and reaction to sudden stimuli are also known consequences of alcohol consumption. Thus, when a motor vehicle is driven after consuming alcohol, road accidents become a predictable consequence. In such a scenario, attributing knowledge to the driver of the vehicle that death can be likely consequence of drunken driving is legally tenable". The case pertains to the alleged drunk driving case involving Venkittaraman (first accused) and his friend, Wafa Firoz (second accused), that had resulted in the death of a journalist, K.M. Basheer, in 2019. As regards the alleged offence of abetment against Firoz, the Court was of the view that there was "not an iota of material to indicate that the 2nd accused (Firoz) had intentionally aided/instigated/conspired to commit the offence with 1st accused. Providing facility for driving a vehicle without anything more cannot amount to abetment. It is not enough that an act on part of alleged abettor happens to facilitate commission of crime. Intentional aiding and therefore, acting complicitly is the gist of offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107, as observed by the Supreme Court in Sreeram v. State of U.P. ". The Court thus allowed the revision petition filed by Firoz, and discharged her for the offence under Section 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act that relates to 'punishment for abetment of certain offences' after taking note of the nature of materials collected by the investigation. The Case In 2019, a journalist K.M. Basheer was allegedly killed when a vehicle driven by Venkittaraman, ran over him at high speed, at Museum Junction in Thiruvananthapuram District of Kerala. It was alleged that Venkittaraman, who was accompanied by Firoz, was in an inebriated state, which led to the accident. Initially, he 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.The offences under Sections 304 and 201 IPC and Section 3(1)(2) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter, 'PDPP') apart from Sections 184, 185 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act') were thus alleged to have been committed by the accused. The doctors are said to have confirmed his inebriated state, however, later it was disclosed that there was an omission to conduct his blood test. The sample is said to have been collected only ten hours after the incident.While Venkittaraman was suspended from service immediately following the incident, he was later reinstated as the District Collector of Alappuzha. It was pursuant to several protests that he was later removed from the post, and is presently the General Manager of SupplyCo.The Additional Sessions Court I, Trivandrum, dropped the charges under Section 304 which provides punishment for culpable homicide and Section 201, which penalizes causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information, had however maintained that the other charges under Sections 304 A (causing death by negligence) and 279 (rash and negligent driving) of the IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act would stand. Venkittaraman had argued that there was no evidence regarding him having driven the vehicle in a drunken state.The State Government had thus filed a Revision Petition challenging the order dropping the charges, averring that the statements of the witnesses had revealed that Venkitaraman was in an inebriated state at the time of the incident, and had been reluctant to give his blood sample with a view to destroy the evidence, and that he had made all effort in this regard to delay treatment when he was taken to the General Hospital on the day of the accident.It was argued by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State that the investigation had adduced sufficient materials to frame a charge under Section 304 IPC and other offences alleged in the final report. It was argued that Venkittaraman, who is a highly influential IAS officer and a medical doctor by graduation, had manipulated and prevented a laboratory test from being conducted on him to analyze his blood sample until 10.30 A.M. knowing that the test would have...

Breaking: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Sessions Court Order Dropping Culpable Homicide Charges Against IAS Officer Sreeram Venkataraman

Navya Benny

The Court however, confirmed the order discharging Venkitaraman under Sections 184, 185 of MV Act, and Section 3(2) PDPP Act.

Tags