Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Every Court Obliged to Decide on Alternative Charge Under Section 304A: High Court Upholds Conviction in Rash Driving Case:

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that clarifies the legal provisions relating to motor vehicle accidents causing death, the Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant, Renjith Raj, was initially tried for an offense under Section 304 IPC but was eventually convicted for rash and negligent driving leading to death, under Section 304A IPC.

The judgment, delivered by Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, sheds light on the application of law in cases involving death due to negligent driving. “Every court, while framing a charge in cases of death involving the use of motor vehicles where a final report alleges an offense under Section 304 IPC, is obliged to apply mind and decide whether an alternative charge for an offense punishable under Section 304A is also to be framed,” the Court observed, emphasizing the judicial responsibility in such cases.

The case stemmed from an incident on 8th November 2014, where the appellant, driving a bus on Ernakulam Paramara Road, reportedly hit the handrails, resulting in the death of a pedestrian, Sri Velayudhan. The trial court’s conviction was based on substantial eyewitness testimonies and evidence presented, including the immediate identification of the appellant as the bus driver and dismissal of his defense regarding a mechanical defect in the bus.

The appellant’s contention that his conviction under Section 304A IPC was illegal, given the initial charge under Section 304 IPC, was robustly addressed. The High Court referred to various precedents and legal provisions, particularly focusing on the interpretation of Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to conclude that the conviction was legally sound.

Date of Decision:16 January 2024

RENJITH RAJ  VS STATE, REPRESENTED

 

Similar News