Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Whoever Causes The Death By Negligence, Not Amounting To Culpable Homicide, Shall Be Punished – Calcutta High Court Confirms Conviction, Modifies Sentence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Calcutta today reaffirmed the legal tenets surrounding negligence under the Indian Penal Code as it upheld the conviction of Golap Sk. For causing death by negligence but altered the terms of his sentence.

Initially convicted by the Fast Track 1st Court in Lalbagh, Murshidabad, Golap Sk. Faced charges under Section 304A IPC after his motorcycle struck and killed Karim Sk. In March 2012. The lower court sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000. The High Court, however, modified this sentence by removing the imprisonment and increasing the fine to Rs. 10,000, aimed to be paid as compensation to the deceased’s family.

This case originated from an incident where Golap Sk., riding his motorcycle at a high speed, fatally collided with the victim. The prosecution successfully argued their case with evidence from the victim’s wife and son, alongside eyewitness accounts. The primary legal challenge revolved around the interpretation of “negligence” under Section 304A and the appropriate sentencing for such a conviction.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) analyzed the legislative intent behind Section 304A, emphasizing the necessity of establishing that the act was rash and negligent and led directly to death. The judge remarked:

“To bring a cause of homicide under sec. 304A IPC, the death, the act causing such death, and the negligent nature of the act must be clearly established.”

On sentencing, the Court found it within its powers to enhance the sentence while prioritizing compensatory justice over punitive measures.

The judgment also referenced decisions like State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh and Shankar Kerba Jadhav & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, which guide the appellate powers in modifying sentences.

Conclusion: While the appeal was partially allowed, the decision to uphold the conviction underlines the court’s stance on negligence leading to death. The modification of the sentence to a fine underscores a shift towards financial compensation for the victim’s family over incarceration.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

Golap Sk. Vs. The State of West Bengal

Similar News