The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a civil contractor under Section 304 A I.P.C. for death by negligence, holding that the alleged failures in construction were not proximate causes of the deceased's death.
The proceedings against the petitioner are quashed, resulting in his discharge under Section 258 Cr.P.C.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6320 of 2008 Dated 23-12-2011
Between:
Chada Ramachandra Reddy.
…Petitioner.
And:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6320 of 2008 ORDER:
Petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. He filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against him in the said case.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner and A.2 in the said case is the one punishable under Section 304 A I.P.C. The defacto complainant Chimmi Kistamma is the 2nd respondent. Notice was ordered to her but the Sub-Inspector of Police, Alair Police Station sent a report which was received through the Court below and that report reads that the defacto complainant Chimmi Kistamma died on 26-2-2006. It is seen from the charge sheet that the 2nd witness Achina Srilatha is described as the daughter of the deceased. It has been considered whether notice to her is necessary. However, having regard to the allegations in the charge sheet and the F.I.R., it is considered that no notice is necessary to the daughter of the deceased as the Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing State has argued the matter at length.
3. The petitioner is admittedly according to the
charge sheet was on the date of incident a civil contractor and was entrusted with the construction of a bridge at Rathnalavagu and it was in progress. The averments in the first information report read that on 20-9-2005 at about 9 P.M., the deceased started on his cycle from his house to go to his agricultural land and that on the way nearby the bridge under construction, he fell down in a puddle or a water pit on the side of diversion way and died of head injuries. The report and the charge sheet read that when the bridge was under construction, the petitioner who was a civil contractor then looking after the bridge created a diversion way on either side of which some puddles came up and that when the deceased was going through that diversion way on his cycle saw some motor vehicles coming in the opposite direction and to avoid the same, he went to the side of diversion way of the road and fell in the puddle or water pit and suffered injuries and died.
4. The allegations in the charge sheet read that the petitioner and his supervisor who is shown as A.2 in the case did not take proper steps to make diversion way fit for cyclists or pedestrians and he left several ditches on either side of the road which became water pits and deceased fell in one of such pits with his cycle and suffered injuries and died. These are the allegations on which the petitioner has been charge sheeted along with his supervisor for the offence under Section 304 A I.P.C.
5. Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that having regard to the ingredients of the offence under Section 304 A I.P.C. that is causing of death by a rash or negligent act, it cannot be said that allegations in charge sheet do show those ingredients and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the above contention of Sri O.Kailashnath pointed out that the charge sheet clearly reads that the petitioner became responsible for the death of the deceased and therefore, case should be allowed to
go on.
7. In the light of the rival contentions, the point is whether there are grounds to quash the case against the petitioner.
8. It may be noted that for application of Section 304 A I.P.C. which is causing death by a rash or negligent act against a person, the death of the deceased in question must first be proved, and secondly, it must be proved that such death was caused by a rash or negligent act on the part of such person or accused and such act was directly responsible for the death.
9. In the present case, the allegations in the prosecution case pleaded in the F.I.R. and charge sheet would show that the petitioner who is a civil contractor of the bridge which was under construction made a diversion way and left open certain pits on the side of the road and they were filled with water and the deceased fell in one of these pits and died. Admittedly, the report or the charge sheet do not show that the petitioner was present when the incident occurred. It should be noted that an act to fall under Section 304 A I.P.C., the act being rash or negligent must also be directly responsible for death or clearly proximate to the incident causing death or directly result in the death.
10. Having regard to this principle, it is clear that the allegations in the charge sheet even if believed would at best only show that certain water pits or puddles came to be formed on either side of the diversion way after its formation and they were not closed. In other words, the acts of the petitioner cannot be said to be proximate to cause of death of the deceased. At best, the petitioner may be liable for damages on civil side for the death of the deceased if it is proved that he is responsible for creation of puddles or water pits. These allegations in the Charge sheet cannot constitute a valid basis for prosecuting petitioner under Section 304 A I.P.C. It appears that the concerned Police Officer who filed charge sheet against the petitioner did not keep the above aspects in view and
the charge sheet would show that he did not collect any evidence to conclude or to prima facie show that the acts of the accused were direct and proximate to the cause of the death of the deceased. It thus follows that the present prosecution of the petitioner can be said to be an abuse of process of the Court which requires interference of this Court.
In the above circumstances, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. It is made clear that this order shall have the effect of only a discharge of the petitioner from the case as contemplated under Section 258 Cr.P.C. having its legal consequences.
________________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 23-12-2011. Dvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6320 of 2008
Dated 23-12-2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 304 A I.P.C. for death by negligence can be quashed when the alleged negligent act is not proximate to the cause of death.
Whether the prosecution case establishes that the accused's rash or negligent act was directly responsible for the deceased's death.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Chada Ramachandra Reddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh
N. RAVI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
