In the High Court of Judicature at… vs Unknown [5, December 2008]

Facts:

The appellant was alleged to have assaulted a man named Bhaurao on the abdomen by using a spear causing multiple injuries and bleeding on the cheeks, chest, and ear of the person. Not only this, multiple injuries were inflicted upon two other witnesses before the appellant named Vinod ran away. Subsequently, a case was filed before the court, where the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the decision, an appeal was made in the High Court.

Issues:

• Whether the appellant should be convicted under Section 302 or Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302, IPC – Punishment for murder
• Section 304, IPC – Punishment for culpable homicide amounting to murder
• Section 324, IPC – Causing grievous hurt by weapons

Appellant’s Contention:

The learned counsel submitted contentions on behalf of the appellant that the real story has been suppressed and has been laid in the court in a manipulated manner. The situation is being corroborated only based on witnesses; there lies no evidence against the appellant which proves the action of the appellant. In short, the offense of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Respondent’s Contention:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the judgment passed by the trial court was apt and does not need to be interfered with since the offense was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The witnesses were close relatives of the deceased and ought not to have been believed by the trial court.

Observations of the court:

The statements submitted by the prosecution witnesses and the certificate issued after post mortem examination deposes as to the incident of assault that led to the death of the deceased. The question which arose before this court was whether the deceased met with homicidal death. As per the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died on account of hemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries. The stabs were a result of continuous use of the spear, which the appellant used to cause grievous hurt to the deceased. The story appeared self-made by the wife of the accused and the accused; therefore it cannot be termed as reliable or acceptable. There is a lack of medical evidence to prove if multiple injuries by stabbing were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, it is not safe to hold the accused guilty of an offense under Section 302. However, the accused cannot escape the liability of culpable homicide.

Judgment:

The appellant is liable under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and the sentence is reduced.

The post Determining the cause of death determines the provision to be put under appeared first on LexForti .

S.N. HUSSAIN V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AIR 1972 SC 685, 5TH JANUARY 1972

MATERIAL FACTS

The appellant was the R.T.C. bus driver and was driving the bus to Vanaparthy from Kurnool. On 01/01/1966, the bus left Kurnool around 6.15 a.m. and arrived at the Railway Level Crossing Gate between 6.30 or 7.00 a.m. When the appellant with his bus approached the level crossing, the gate was open, which was in control of a gateman.

When a Freight train unexpectedly struck the bus on the rear side, the appellant plunged through the gate and traversed the railway track gauge, causing severe casualties to the travelers. Of the 43 commuters, one died at the scene, three died subsequently in the hospital, and there were more or less significant injuries to about twenty-one commuters. When a freight train was going to reach the gate, the charge against the appellant was that he was reckless or negligent in traversing the railway track.

In addition, a few more facts need to be taken into consideration. Owing to the rugged terrain close to the crossing, the bus was not driven and could not be driven speedily. The level crossing gate, which is a manned gate, was open, signaling that no train was due to arrive at the time and welcoming vehicles to cross. Babool trees covered the railway track and thus a passing train approaching from a range was not noticeable from the bus. Since it was not equipped with a silencer, the bus made a significant noise. Some of the bus window screens were brought down for the convenience of the passengers on the bus as a strong wind was swirling. There is no indication that any sirens or whistles were issued by the train while entering the level crossing. In any event, there is no proof that any of the passengers of the bus heard any whistles.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant was negligent in traversing the railway track when the Freight train was about to pass the gate?

LEGAL PROVISION

Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

JUDGEMENT

The decree of conviction and punishment were set aside and the appellant was discharged as a consequence of the success of the appeal.

ANALYSIS

The case of SN Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, majorly deals with section 304(A) of IPC, regarding causing death by negligence. The term ‘negligence’ as used in this section does not mean sheer carelessness. The rashness or negligence must be of such form so as to be called a criminal act of negligence or rashness. In both cases, though, the death caused does not constitute a culpable homicide. It is the degree of negligence that really decides whether a specific act would as described under this section amounts to a rash and negligent act.

The act can be constituted as a rash and negligent act under this section only when the rash and negligent act is of such a nature that the danger faced by the doer of the act is very severe or is committed with such recklessness and with utter disregard and callousness to the consequences of this act. It is necessary to determine, in order to enforce criminal liability under this clause, that death must be the direct result of the accused’s reckless and careless act. It must be the intimate or immediate cause, and it is not adequate for it to be the subsequent or rather proximate cause.

In general, it is assumed that an individual driving a motor vehicle will always be in control of his/her vehicle in such a way that he or she will avoid hitting any other vehicle or running over any pedestrian who may be on the road.

For example, A (the accused) had run over B (the deceased) while B was trying to cross over the road. A did not attempt to save the deceased by diverting it to the other side of the road when there was enough space to do so. This is a consequence of his rash and negligent driving. Thus, under s 304A, of IPC, A would be held guilty and would be convicted.

CONCLUSION

If a railway crossing is unchecked or rather unmanned, it might be correct to ensure that the driver of the vehicle should halt the vehicle, check in both directions, and then drive his vehicle only after ensuring himself that there was no risk of approaching the railway track. But if a gateman guards a railway crossing and the gateman opens the gate allowing the vehicles to proceed, it would be unusual to ask any rational and vigilant driver to halt his vehicle and watch out for any incoming train.

Negligent misconduct resides in the inability to conduct a reasonably fair and proper caution, whose degree of cogency will vary from case to case. Here the appellant cannot even anticipate at what phase of time the freight train will be arriving while taking plausible care. The appellant was therefore not liable for criminal negligence. Owing to the gateman’s failure in holding the gate open and allowing the vehicles to proceed, this was a simple case of an inevitable event.

The post Section 304(A): What constitutes negligence? appeared first on LexForti .

Kuldip Singh and Anr vs the State of Punjab

Facts:

Paramjit Kaur, wife of the appellant was found hanging at her in-law’s place. Kuldip Singh, who is the husband of the deceased along with his parents, was charged for the offense of dowry death and put under rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The medical reports revealed that the death of the deceased was caused by the intake of aluminum phosphide. The complainant, Naranjan Das, father of the deceased, had filed an appeal for a criminal revision, aggrieved by the decision of which the respondents’ moved to the High Court seeking relief.

Issues:

Whether the accused are guilty of dowry death and if the criminal revision appeal of the respondent should be considered?

Legal provisions:

● Section 304B, IPC – Dowry Death
● Section 498A, IPC -Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
● Section 313, CrPc -Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent
● Section 113B, The Indian Evidence Act,1872 -Presumption as to dowry death

Appellant’s Contention:

It was contented by the appellant that his wife was going through depression and submitted that he had earlier demanded Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- when he was leaving for abroad, but he had returned all at once. After returning from abroad he never approached his father-in-law for money. The deceased was never subjected to any cruelty or maltreatment by him or his parents; he claimed to have cordial relations with the family of the deceased. The Trial court had overlooked the circumstances and provisions arising in dowry death.

Respondent’s Contention:

The complainant stated that his daughter had complained of the mistreatment by her in-laws on account of getting an insufficient dowry, which is enough to prove that her in-laws and her husband are responsible for the incident.

Observations of the court:

It was observed by the court that a case that had been filed around 2 years before the marriage seems to be coinciding with the present case and therefore, this case is being treated under dowry death. However, there was no harassment or cruelty soon before the passing of the deceased. It is the duty of the investigator to draw observations impartially; he should have carefully examined the statement proposed by Naranjan Das. There is also no evidence to prove that the accused had instigated her to take such steps. All the ingredients do not lie in this case.

Judgment:

The court was of the view that a suicide case was simply illustrated as dowry death. It is important to know that the death of a wife within 7 years of marriage doesn’t always amount to dowry death, it can occur due to other reasons as well. Hence, the accused are acquitted.

The post Suicide falsely implicated as Dowry Death appeared first on LexForti .

Paul vs the State of Kerala

Facts:

Jessy, the wife of the appellant was subjected to cruelty and brutality by the appellant and his mother. On 11.10.1998, the deceased was confronted with intolerable behavior by her mother-in-law, because of whom she felt harassed and insulted. She left the house in search of her husband, whom she found consuming alcohol with his friends and was assaulted by him in front of all. Thereafter, she was found dead the same night by throttling of her neck. However, the husband had set up a false case by attributing death as a suicide. The appellant and his mother were acquitted by the trial court and the High Court of Kerala held guilty under Section 302 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The State filed a criminal appeal against acquittal.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is guilty of murder?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 300, The Indian Penal Code – Murder
• Section 302, The Indian Penal Code- Punishment for murder
• Section 304, The Indian Penal Code– Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
• Section 105, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Burden of proof
• Section 313, The Criminal Procedure Code

Appellant’s Contention:

The learned counsel submitted that Jessy had aborted a child and was going through depression. Although there was a quarrel and assuming that the appellant had set up a scene of suicide, he must be extended the benefit of exception 4 of Section 300.

Respondent’s Contention:

The respondent in her submission made mention of the deceased being subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellant and his mother. After examination of several witnesses and chemical analysis reports, it entailed abrasion and contusion on various parts of the body of the deceased. Therefore, the decision of the High Court should standstill.

Observations of the court:

The judgment revealed that the High Court had found an incomplete examination by the Sessions Judge under Section 313 of the CrPc and pointed out the necessity of Section 106 being taken into account. The appellant had contended that there was no one except him in the bedroom when the incident took place which places the burden of proof on him under Section 105. Therefore, he palpably set up a false case depicting suicide committed by the deceased. Even if the appellant was intoxicated, he is still liable for the actions he took. If the said act would not have amounted to murder then it would have taken the scope of Section 304. The bruise, abrasion, and contusion make the case more evident.

Judgment:

The court concluded that the appellant had made a false plea and caused the death of his wife by throttling. The act amounts to murder defined under Section 300 of the IPC and does not draw any exceptions to it.

The post Fictitious portrayal of a crime appeared first on LexForti .

Ananta Kamilya vs The State of West Bengal

Facts:

Ananta Kamilya inflicted an injury by lathi on the head of the deceased after a heated argument because of which the deceased was taken to different hospitals and departed his life after 7 days. The appellant moved to the Supreme Court seeking relief after being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Calcutta, which dismissed the appeal of the appellant and held the accused guilty for the offense committed under Section 302 of the IPC.

Issue:

Whether the appellant was guilty of murder?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code – Murder
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code – Punishment for murder
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Appellant’s Contention:

The learned counsel submitted that there was no intention on the part of the accused to inflict a serious injury which could have ultimately led to the death of the deceased, which implies that the offense committed does not amount murder. Furthermore, it was submitted that the deceased passed away after 7 days, despite taking the deceased to several different hospitals. Therefore, it was prayed to convict the accused under either Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.

Respondent’s Contention:

The learned counsel for the state of West Bengal supporting the decision of the High Court of Calcutta, submitted that an act of causing an injury on any vital part of the body could be lethal and, thus, the offense committed would be considered under Section 300 of the IPC, hence, it was prayed to dismiss the appeal.

Observations of the Court:

The court after reviewing the facts of the case and the judgment rendered by the High Court was of the opinion that the accused did not carry a lathi, instead, it was present at the place of the incident. It was only due to a heated argument that the accused on the spur of the moment gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased, who after sustaining the injury got a fracture. Despite such serious injury, he was taken to the police station, other hospitals, and eventually after the 7th day he died. This shows the grievousness of the injury, which means the death was an outcome of an injury in an argument. Therefore, the case would fall under exception 4 to Section 300.

Judgment:

After looking from all the angles of the scenario, the accused is not guilty of murder and is liable to be punished under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.

The post An infelicitous attempt without a malicious intent appeared first on LexForti .