The High Court allowed petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash a final report under Section 304-A IPC regarding an electrocution death. The court held that the report failed to show the petitioners were grossly negligent or that their act was the causa causans.
Crl.O.P.s allowed; final report quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions 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.8907 & 14304 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P. Nos. 8907 & 14304 of 2021 & Crl. M.P.Nos. 5791, 7812 & 7813 of 2021
Selvaraj ... Petitioner in Crl.OP/8907/2021 S.R.Suresh ... Petitioner in Crl.OP/14304/2021
Vs.
1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chettipalayam Police Station, Chettipalayam – Post, Coimbatore District. 2.Piragalathan. ... Respondents in both Crl.OP
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.294 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai, Coimbatore.
1/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr. D.Veerasekharan
For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor.
For Respondent 2 : No Appearance.
C O M M O N O R D E R
These petitions are filed to quash the final report filed under
Section 304 - A of IPC.
petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14304 of 2021 is A2.
as a Manager (A2) and a Supervisor (A3) in a Company, called Rajmahal Tyre Equipment Private Limited; that one Arunkumar was
working in the said company and on 23.06.2015 at about 7.55 a.m., after taking bath, he had attempted to put towel for drying and had
2/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
accidentally come in contact with the live electric wire near the
compound wall of the company; that due to electrocution the said Arunkumar died. Therefore, the petitioners were prosecuted for the above said offences along with the proprietor of the company (A1).
(ii) The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are the employees of the company and in order to invoke the offence of 304 - A IPC, it has to be established that the petitioners' act was the proximate cause for the death of the deceased.
that the allegations attracts the offence of Section 304 - A IPC and the
3/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
matter has to be adjudicated during the Trial.
entered appearance for the 2nd respondent.
as to how the petitioners were responsible for the unfortunate accident.
reported in 2022 (2) lw crl 210 – Arulanandham Vs. State Rep. by
Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Erode District , had held
as follows:
4/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
“14. Thus, from the above discussion, it would be
clear that "negligence" or "rashness" per se are not culpable unless it is grave or gross in nature. That apart, the facts of the instant case would show that the act of the accused was not the "causa causans" for the death of the deceased. Even according to the prosecution, the deceased fell off the bike and thereafter runover by the lorry. The act of the accused, therefore, was not the immediate cause for the death of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushil Ansal stated supra was pleased to observe as follows:
"82. To sum up : for an offence under Section 304A 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 Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn.) which
5/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
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’; the real effective cause of damage.”
84. The expression “proximate cause” is defined in the 5th Edn. of Black's 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 v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. [226 Pa Super 574 : 323 A2d 744 (1974)], A2d at p. 748. That which is nearest in the order of responsible causation. That which stands next in causation to the
6/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
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 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.”
Sushil Ansal's case reported in (2014) 6 SCC 173 extracted in the
7/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
above passage squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. In the absence of any material to show that the act of the petitioners was the immediate cause for the accident, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offences under Section 304 – A IPC.
08.06.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No
kan
8/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
To
9/10
Crl.O.P.No.8907 & 14304 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
kan
Crl.O.P.No. 8907 & 14304 of 2021
08.06.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the final report establishes gross negligence and causa causans for invoking Section 304-A IPC.
Whether the petitioners' act was the proximate cause for the death of the deceased.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ArulanandhamRelied on¶41
2022 (2) lw crl 210 – Arulanandham Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Erode District
Sushil AnsalRelied on¶66
Sushil Ansal's case reported in (2014) 6 SCC 173 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Selvaraj
S.R. Suresh
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chettipalayam Police Station
Piragalathan
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SUNDER MOHAN
Parties & counsel
