Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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