Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Knowledge of Likely Result of Death Cannot Be Attributed to Lorry Owner: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court has set aside charges of culpable homicide and grievous hurt against Shamsudheen, a lorry owner, while upholding the charges under the Motor Vehicles Act. The decision, delivered by Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, found that the trial court's framing of charges lacked necessary legal foundations, leading to a remand for fresh trial proceedings.

The case stems from an incident on December 25, 2015, when Asif Rehman, the driver of a tipper lorry owned by Shamsudheen, allegedly drove the vehicle recklessly, resulting in the death of a boy named Shine Lal and serious injuries to another individual, Janu. The prosecution charged both Rehman and Shamsudheen with multiple offences, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and causing grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC. Additionally, they faced charges under Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving with a detached speed governor.

Deficiency in Charge Framing: Justice Ajithkumar identified significant flaws in the charges framed by the trial court. The charges failed to detail how Shamsudheen, the lorry owner, could be held responsible for the specific acts leading to the homicide and injuries. "By no stretch of imagination, knowledge as to the likely result of death of and injuries to pedestrians and passengers of other vehicles by driving of the lorry could be attributed to the 2nd petitioner," the judgment noted.

Absence of Direct Knowledge: The court emphasized that Shamsudheen did not possess direct knowledge of how the lorry would be driven, which is crucial for establishing culpability under Sections 304(ii) and 325 IPC. The court stated, "It is not able to say that on the basis of the available materials that the death and injuries were the proximate result of the act of the 2nd accused, without which he cannot be asked to stand trial for those offences."

The High Court highlighted the necessity of clear legal grounds when framing charges. For a charge to be sustainable, it must be supported by evidence directly linking the accused to the alleged crime. The judgment referred to precedent in Renjith Raj v. State to support the requirement for specific factual details in the charge sheet.

Charges Under Motor Vehicles Act: While setting aside the charges under IPC sections, the court found the charges under Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act to be valid. This section deals with the violation of driving a vehicle with a detached speed governor. The court affirmed that Shamsudheen could be charged under this provision as he had allowed the lorry to be driven in violation of the permit.

The Kerala High Court’s decision to quash the charges of culpable homicide and grievous hurt against Shamsudheen and order a fresh trial under the Motor Vehicles Act underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring accurate and legally sound charge framing. This judgment not only provides clarity in this specific case but also sets a significant precedent for future cases involving similar legal questions.

Date of Decision: June 14, 2024

 Asif Rehman & Anr. v. State of Kerala

 

Similar News