Kerala High Court

Natarajan vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2024

Author: P. V. Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                        2024:KER:77422
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946

                       CRL.MC NO. 6486 OF 2018

        CRIME NO.987/2016 OF Eloor Police Station, Ernakulam

         AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.205 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST

                CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALAMASSERY


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

    1       NATARAJAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.RAMASWAMY,
            SAKTHI NIVAS, PATHALAM KARA, SARPPAPARAMBU BHAGAM,
            KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.
    2       HARIPRASAD, AGED 58 YEARS
            S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, HARISREE, EDAPPALLY NORTH
            VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY NORTH KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
            M.REVIKRISHNAN
            AJEESH K.SASI
            P.M.RAFIQ
            V.C.SARATH
            VIPIN NARAYAN
            POOJA PANKAJ
            SRUTHY N. BHAT

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
           STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682031.

OTHER PRESENT:
           SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP

     THIS   CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.6486/2018
                                    2

                                                        2024:KER:77422


                   P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                -------------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.C.No.6486 of 2018
                -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024

                               ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.205/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. The above case is charge sheeted

against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section

304A IPC.

2. Hindustan Insecticides Limited, Udyogamandal is

a registered factory engaged in the manufacturing of insecticides and

pesticides. An accident occurred in the factory on 02.11.2016 at about

10.10 a.m. The allegation in the above case is that, on the date of

occurrence, at the relevant time, a load of Carbon disulphide which

was delivered at the premises of the factory in a vehicle bearing

registration No.KL-43E-5171 from HAL company, Eloor was

attempting to unload by the employees, caused a mishap by

2024:KER:77422

fire, resulting in serious injuries to two employees of the factory, who

succumbed to the same later. Some other employees of the factory

also sustained injuries. According to the prosecution, the 1st accused

in the case who is the Safety Officer of the company and the 2 nd

accused who is the Production Manager did not act appropriately to

the emergency of the situation and as such, there was supervisory

lapse on the part. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the

offence. Annexure-A is the final report. According to the petitioners,

even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public

Prosecutor.

4. The allegation against the petitioner as stated in

Annexure-A complaint is extracted hereunder:

'പ്രതികൾക്ക് മനുഷ്യജീവന് അപകടമോ, മറ്റുള്ളവരുടെ സുരക്ഷയ്ക്ക് അപായമോ, സ്വത്തുക്കൾക്കു നാശമോ, സംഭവിപ്പിക്കണമെന്നുള്ള ഉദ്ദേശത്തോടും കരുതലോടും കൂടി അവിവേകമായും ഉപേക്ഷയോടും കൂടി ഏലൂർ വില്ലേജ് കമ്പനിപ്പടി ഭാഗത്തു തെക്കു-വടക്കായി കിടക്കുന്ന കമ്പനിപ്പടി മേത്താനം റോഡിന്റെ പടിഞ്ഞാറുവശം കിഴക്കു ദർശനത്തിൽ സ്ഥിതിചെയ്യുന്ന കേന്ദ്രഗവണ്മെന്റ് സ്ഥാപനമായ ഹിന്ദുസ്ഥാൻ ഇൻസെക്ടിസൈഡ്സ് ലിമിറ്റഡ് കമ്പനിയുടെ സേഫ്റ്റി ഓഫീസറായ ഒന്നാം പ്രതിയുടെയും പ്രൊഡക്ഷൻ മാനേജരായ 2-)൦ പ്രതിയുടെയും അസിസ്റ്റന്റ് പ്രൊഡക്ഷൻ മാനേജരായ 3-)൦ പ്രതിയുടെയും സാഹചര്യത്തിന്

2024:KER:77422

അനുസരിച്ചുള്ള ഉപേക്ഷയും നോട്ടപ്പിശകും മൂലം കമ്പനിയുടെ പടിഞ്ഞാറുവശത്തുള്ള മംഗോ സബ് പ്ലാന്റിൽ നിന്നും 35 മീറ്റർ കിഴക്കുമാറിയും CS2 സ്റ്റോറേജ് ടാങ്ക് പ്ലാന്റിൽ നിന്നും സുമാർ 15 മീറ്റർ നേരെ തെക്കുമാറിയും കാണുന്ന കമ്പനിക്കു ആവശ്യമായ ഇന്ധനം ഇറക്കുന്നതിനായി ലോഡുമായി വാഹനം നിറുത്തിയിടുന്ന ബേയിൽ കയറ്റിയിട്ട ഇറക്കുമതി ചെയ്ത ടാങ്കിൽ നിന്നും 02/11/2015 തീയ്യതി കാലത്തു 10 മണിക്ക് കാർബൺ ഡൈ സൾഫൈഡ് വാതകം സ്റ്റോറേജ് ടാങ്കിലേക്ക് മതിയായ സുരക്ഷാക്രമീകരണങ്ങളില്ലാതെ അശ്രദ്ധമായി ഇറക്കുവാൻ ശ്രമിക്കവേ വാതകം ചോർന്നു തീ പിടിച്ചും (1) പോൾ പി. തോമസ് age 57/16 s /o പൗലോ തോമസ്, പയ്യപ്പിള്ളി വീട് മേക്കാട്, നെടുമ്പാശ്ശേരി വില്ലജ് (2) ഗണപതി രാമൻ age 57/16 s/o കൃഷ്ണയ്യർ കല്ലുങ്കൽ ലൈൻ ആലുവ എന്നിവർക്ക് അതീവ ഗുരുതരമായി പരിക്കേറ്റ്‌ ചികിത്സയിൽ ഇരിക്കെ മരണപ്പെടുവാനും 10-ഓളം പേർക്ക് പരിക്കേൽക്കുന്നതിനും KL /43E -5171 നമ്പർ ടാങ്കർ ലോറി കത്തിനശിക്കുന്നതിനും ഇടയാക്കി പ്രതികൾ sec 304 (A) 34 IPC പ്രകാരം ശിക്ഷിക്കത്തക്ക കുറ്റം ചെയ്ത കാര്യം.'

5. To attract the offence under Section 304A IPC,

death should be the direct consequence of the negligence of the

accused. This Court in Rekha and Ors. v. State of Kerala and

Ors. [MANU/KE/3490/2021, Crl.M.C.No.5722/2016 dated

30.11.2021] considered the ingredients to attract Section 304A IPC. It

will be better to extract the relevant portion hereunder:

'7. As early in 1902, the Bombay High Court in the oft quoted decision in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap and another laid down the law thus:-

"To impose criminal liability under Section 304A,

2024:KER:77422

Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non."

8. These observations have received acceptability of the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of authorities have quoted the same with approval. (See the decisions in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra [MANU/SC/0093/1964 : AIR 1965 SC 1616] and Suleman Rahiman Mulani and Another v. State of Maharashtra [MANU/SC/0089/1967 : AIR 1968 SC 829] etc.) That means, there must be direct nexus between the death and the alleged rashness or negligence attributed against the accused persons. Here the question is whether such a rashness or negligence can be attributed against the petitioners.'

6. The Apex Court in Ambalal D. Bhatt v. The

State of Gujarat [AIR 1972 SC 1150] also considered the

ingredients of Section 304A IPC. It will be better to extract the

relevant portion of the above judgment:

'8. It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that

2024:KER:77422

the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed, but since that is not the criteria, we have to determine whether the appellant's act in giving only one batch number to all the four lots manufactured on 12-11-62 in preparing batch No. 211105 was the cause of deaths and whether those deaths were a direct consequence of the appellants' act, that is, whether the appellant's act is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. As observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1902) 4 Bom LR 679 the act causing the deaths "must be the cause causans; It is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non". This view has been adopted by this Court in several decisions. In Kurban Hussein Moham-medali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0093/1964 : [1965]2 SCR 622, the accused who had manufactured wet paints without a licence was acquitted of the charge under Section 304A because it was held that the mere fact that he allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the accused responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out, but was also due to the overflowing of froth out of the barrels. In Suieman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra

2024:KER:77422

MANU/SC/0089/1967 : 1968 CriLJ 1013 the accused who was driving a car only with a learner's licence without a trainer by his side, had injured a person. It was held that that by itself was not sufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 304A. It would be different if it can be established as in the case of Bhalchandra v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0042/1968: 1968 CriLJ 1501 that deaths and injuries caused by the contravention of a prohibition in respect of the substances which are highly dangerous as in the case of explosives in a cracker factory which are considered to be of a highly hazardous and dangerous nature having sensitive composition where even friction or percussion could cause an explosion, that contravention would be the causa causans.' (underline supplied)

7. Again, the apex court in Kurban Hussein

Mohammedali Rangwalla v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965

SC 1616] considered the ingredients of section 304A IPC. The

relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

'5. We may in this connection refer to Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1902) IV Bom. L.R. 679 where Sir Lawrence Jenkins had to interpret section 304-A and observed as follows :-

"To impose criminal liability under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may

2024:KER:77422

have been the cause sine qua non."

6. This view has been generally followed by High Courts in India and is in our opinion the right view to take of the meaning of section 304-A. It is not necessary to refer to other decisions, for as we have already said this view has been generally accepted. Therefore the mere fact that the fire would not have taken place if the appellant had not allowed burners to be put in the same room in which turpentine and varnish were stored, would not be enough to make him liable under section V, for the fire would not have taken place, with the result that seven persons were burnt to death, without the negligence of Hatim. The death in this case was therefore in our opinion not directly the result of a rash or negligent act on the part of the appellant and was not the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. The appellant must therefore be acquitted of the offence under section 304-A.'

8. In the light of the above principles, this Court

considered the allegation against the petitioners. The allegation

against the petitioners is that the petitioners have not taken proper

security measures to avoid the accident. The totality of the facts and

circumstances reveal in the case would show that, it was an accident

which happened not on account of any failure or omission of

anybody. The statement of witnesses, including the injured

2024:KER:77422

witnesses does not implicate the petitioners with specific attribution

of an act or omission aiding to an offence on their part, except the

statement that the petitioners were holding respective posts.

Investigating Officer has not conducted any investigation to find out,