The Learned Single Judge allowed the Criminal Original Petition quashing proceedings under Section 304(A) IPC for alleged negligence, finding no evidence of gross negligence or proximate cause for death in the final report.
Petition allowed; impugned proceedings against the petitioner are quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P. No. 5417 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. Nos. 3502 & 3504 of 2021
D.Victor Paul
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State, rep. by Inspector of Police, S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043.
2.M.Paul Jayaraj ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.270 of 2017 dated 19.08.2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai and quash the same as illegal.
1/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Kingston Jerold For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent 2 : No Appearance.
O R D E R
The petition is to quash the final report for the alleged offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC.
p.m when the deceased was doing painting work in the house of the 1st
accused, he accidentally fell from a height of 15 feet and sustained injuries. Consequently, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. It is alleged that the 2nd accused, who is an Engineer, asked the deceased to do the painting work on behalf of the owner of the property, namely, the 1st accused.
submit that the allegation, even if accepted to be true, would not attract
2/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC. There is no allegation on the final report as to how the petitioner is guilty of gross negligence so as to attract the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC. Admittedly, the worker fell down accidentally, and the unfortunate death occurred. The petitioner cannot be made liable for the accident that took place in the work spot. There is no allegation as to what were the safety measures that were allegedly not taken by the petitioner in the work spot. The materials filed along with the final report are silent on the alleged violations said to have been committed by the petitioner. That apart, there is nothing in the impugned final report to show that the petitioner was engaged by the 1st accused to undertake painting work and that the petitioner had employed the deceased.
the points raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and have to be adjudicated only before the Trial and pray for the dismissal of the quash petition.
3/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
made by the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the notice to the second respondent who is the brother of the deceased,
is dispensed with.
4/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
understanding:
“81. Suffice it to say that this Court has in Kurban
Husseins case accepted in unequivocal terms the correctness of the proposition that criminal liability under Section 304-A of the IPC shall arise only if the prosecution proves that the death of the victim was the result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that such act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another persons negligence. A subsequent decision of this Court in Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 829 has once again approved the view taken in Omkar Rampratap case that the act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not simply a causa sine qua non for the death of the victim in a case under Section 304-A of the IPC. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Rustom Sherior Irani v. State of Maharashtra 1969 ACJ 70; Balchandra v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC
5/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
1319;Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana(1970) 3 SCC
904; S.N Hussain v. State of A.P. (1972) 3 SCC 18; Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 525 and Jacob Mathew's case.
82. To sum up: for an offence under Section 304-A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans that resulted in the death of the victim.
83. As to what is meant by causa causans we may gainfully refer to Blacks Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) which defines that expression as under: “Causa causans-
The immediate cause; the last link in the chain of causation.
The Advance Law Lexicon edited by Justice Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India defines Causa Causans as follows: “Causa causans-The immediate cause as opposed
to a remote cause; the last link in the chain of causation;
6/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
the real effective cause of damage.
84. The expression proximate cause is defined in the 5th edition of Blacks Law Dictionary as under: “Proximate cause-That which in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred. Wisniewski vs. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Company., A2d at p. 748. That which is nearest in the order of responsible causation. That which stands next in causation to the effect, not necessarily in time or space but in causal relation. The proximate cause of an injury is the primary or moving cause, or that which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the accident could not have happened, if the injury be one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the wrongful act. An injury or
damage is proximately caused by an act, or a failure to
7/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case,
that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission.”
8/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
way of compensation, which is recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - II, Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai, in W.C.No.343 of 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are three legal heirs of the deceased, and the petitioner would, on humanitarian grounds, pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the victims, namely, (i) Shobana, (ii) Delphin Shakinal and (iii) Rani Priscilla. The said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- may be divided into three parts and paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as aforesaid. The petitioner also offered to make the payment within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
26.04.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No kan
9/10
Crl.O.P.No.5417 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
kan
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Pallavaram, Chennai
Crl.O.P.No. 5417 of 2021
26.04.2023
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Complaint Officer's report establishes gross negligence and proximate cause for a charge under Section 304(A) of IPC against the petitioner.
Whether the allegations in the final report sufficiently attract criminal liability under Section 304(A) of IPC.
Whether the impugned proceedings instituted against the petitioner should be quashed in the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kurban Husseins caseReferred¶42
Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 829Referred¶43
Omkar Rampratap caseReferred¶43
Rustom Sherior Irani v. State of Maharashtra 1969 ACJ 70Referred¶43
Balchandra v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1319Referred¶43
Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana(1970) 3 SCC 904Referred¶47
S.N Hussain v. State of A.P. (1972) 3 SCC 18Referred¶47
Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 525Referred¶47
Jacob Mathew's caseReferred¶48
2 provisions across 2 enactments
D.Victor Paul
State, rep. by Inspector of Police
M.Paul Jayaraj
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
