Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

Latest Legal News