The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Arnav Chaudhary Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr held that Section 304A has application to those cases where there is neither intention to cause death nor knowledge that the act in all probability will cause death.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the opposite party no. 2 lodged a written complaint stating that his daughter met with an accident and stating that the said car was driven by the petitioner at a very high speed and dangerous manner as a result of which the said accident had taken place. Based on the complaint the police registered a case against the petitioner under Section 279/304 Part-II/308/427 of the IPC.
Contentions:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Goutam Singh vs. State of West Bengal and submits that the materials on record and the papers gathered thus far have never established a case of the purposeful and deliberate act on the part of the accused/driver to show even prima facie that the accused caused the death by such act with knowledge that it was likely to cause death. This is unquestionably a case of rash and careless driving that resulted in the terrible death of the defacto complainant's daughter. In such an instance, the culprit should have been charged under Section 304A of the IPC. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgments titled State of Punjab vs.Balwinder Singh and Ors, and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. The learned counsel contended that in cases of cognizable offence, receipt or recording of FIR is not a condition precedent to set in motion of criminal investigation. Section 157 provides the procedure for investigation.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite party contended that to bring a charge under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the death of the person in question, that such death was caused by the accused's act, and that he was aware that such act was likely to result in death. On the contrary, Section 304A may be invoked in a case where negligent or rashness is the sole cause of death; however, if the rash and negligent act are preceded by the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death, Section 304 Part-II of the IPC may be invoked; and if such rash and negligent act are preceded by a real incident on the part of the wrongdoer to cause death. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments titled Alister Anthony Pareira vs State of Maharashtra, State Tr. P.S Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs Sanjeev Nanda, Kurukshetra University & Anr. vs State of Haryana & Anr, Minu Kumari & Anr. vs State of Bihar & Ors, and Vikram Chatterjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Court’s Observation:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the plain reading of Section 304 makes it clear that it is in two parts, the first part of the Section is generally referred to as “Section 304 Part-I,” whereas the second part is “Section 304 Part-II”. The first part applies where the accused causes death to the victim to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Part II on the other hand comes into play when death is caused by doing an act under the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The Section deals with homicidal death by the rash or negligent act. It does not create a new offence. It is directed against offences outside the range under Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC and covers those cases where death has been caused without intention or knowledge. The words “not amounting to culpable homicide” in the provision are significant and convey that the Section seeks to embrace this case where there is neither intention to cause death, nor knowledge that the act done will in all probability result in death. It applies to acts that are rash or negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person.
The Bench held that there is thus a distinction between Section 304 and Section 304A. Section 304A carves out cases where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act which does not amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder within the meaning of Section 299 or culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 300 of the IPC. In other words, Section 304A excludes all the ingredients of Section 299 as also as Section 300. Where intention or knowledge is the “motivating force” of the act complained of, Section 304A will have to make room for the graver or most serious charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or amounting to murder as the facts disclose. The Section has application to those cases where there is neither intention to cause death nor knowledge that the act in all probability will cause death.
The decision of the Court:
The Petitioner was driving the vehicle at utmost high speed despite knowing that such reckless driving may cause the death of any by-stander or himself and his fellow passengers The court didn’t quash the registration of a case against the petitioner under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
Case Title: Arnav Chaudhary Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr
Coram: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Case No: CRR 4185 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv., Ms. Priyanka Tiberwal, Adv., Mr. Rajdeep Mazumdar, Adv., Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Amitava Ray, Adv., Mr. Vijay Verma, Adv., Ms. Sofia Nesar, Adv., Mr. Santanu Sett, Adv. Mr. Adtiya Ratan Tiwari, Adv
Picture Source :
