Madras High Court
R.Vinothkumar vs The State Rep. By on 6 April, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16065 & 16066 of 2019
1.R.Vinothkumar
2.A.Manikandan
... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police (L&O)
V-1, Villivakkam Police Station,
Chennai-600049
2.P.Suresh
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code seeking call for the records and quash the charge
sheet in C.C.No.5746/2019 against the petitioners/accused-1 and 2 on the
file of the XIII MM Court, Egmore.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Dhinesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A,Damoharan, Addl. Public
Prosecutor, [R.1]
: M/s.R.Thamaraiselvan for C.Jaya Prakash
[R.2]
ORDER
The petition is to quash the final report for the alleged offences under
Section 304 A IPC.
2. It is alleged in the final report that A.1, the 1st petitioner is the
proprietor of a gym and A.2, the 2nd petitioner is a trainer; that on
29.05.2018 at about 7:30 pm one Mohana Sundharam was doing exercise in
the gym had fainted and fell on dumbbell as a result of which he suffered a
head injury and died.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
allegations in the impugned final report would not constitute the offence
under Section 304A IPC. Admittedly, the deceased Mohana Sundharam fell
unconscious while doing exercise in the gym and because of his fall he
suffered a head injury and was taken to the hospital immediately. He was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
declared dead at the hospital. There is nothing in the impugned final report
to show as to how the petitioners were liable for the offence under Section
304A IPC. Even if, the entire allegation is accepted to be true the offence is
not made out.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are
allegations and the points raised by the petitioners has to be adjudicated
only before the Trial Court; that the petitioners have not made out any
ground for quashing the impugned final report and prayed for dismissal of
the quash petition.
5. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent and a learned
counsel had entered appearance, there was no representation when the
matter was called on 03.04.2022. Even today there is no representation for
the 2nd respondent.
6. This Court on reading of the impugned final report finds that the
only allegation against the petitioners is that while doing exercise the
deceased fell unconscious and since he fell on dumbbell he sustained head
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
injuries. Thereafter, the petitioners had taken him to the hospital where he
was declared dead. The allegation would not in any manner attract the
offence under Section 304A IPC. It is well settled that in order to prosecute
a person for the offence under Section 304A IPC, the act committed should
be the causa causans. Further, the negligence must be of gross. Neither of it
has been alleged in the instant case.
7. In this regard, the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sushil Ansal vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation reported
in (2014) 6 SCC 173 would directly apply to the facts of the case. The
relevant portions of the said Judgment are extracted below:-
“81. Suffice it to say that this Court has in Kurban
Hussein's case accepted in unequivocal terms the
correctness of the proposition that criminal liability under
Section 304 – A of the I.P.C., shall arise only if the
prosecution proves that the death of the victim was the
result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that
such act was the proximate and efficient cause without the
intervention of another person's negligence. A subsequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
decision of this Court in Suleman Rahiman Mulani vs.
State of Maharasthra has once again approved the view
taken in Omkar Ramprathap case that the act of the
accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not
simply a causa sine qua non for the death of the victim in a
case under Section 304 – A I.P.C.,. To the same effect are
the decisions of this Court in Rustom Sherior Irani v.State
of Maharashtra, Bhalchandra v.State of Mahrashtra,
Kishan Chan v.State of Haryana, S.N.Hussain v.State of
A.P., Ambalal D.Bhatt v.State of Gujarat and Jacob
Mathew case. ”
“82. To sum up : for an offence under Section 304 –
A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the
accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that
such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans
that resulted in the death of the victim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
“83. As to what is meant by causa causans we may
gainfully refer to Black's Law Dictionary (5th
Edition)which defines that expression as under:“Causa
causans – The immediate cause; the last link in the chain
of causation.”
The Advance Law Lexicon edited by Justice
Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India defines causa
causans as follows: “Causa causans – The immediate
cause as opposed to a remote cause; the 'last link in the
chain of causation'; the real effective cause of damage.”
84. The expression “proximate cause” is defined in
the 5th edition of Black's Law Dictionary as under:-
“Proximate cause – That which, in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces injury and without which the result would
not have occurred. Wisiniewski v.Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., A2d at p. 748. That which is nearest in the order
of responsible causation. That which stands next in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
causation to the effect, not necessarily in time or space but
in causal relation. The proximate cause of an injury is the
primary or moving cause, or that which, in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury and without which the accident
could not have happened, if the injury be one which might
be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural
consequence of the wrongful act. An injury or damage is
proximately caused by an act, or a failure to act, whenever
it appears from the evidence in the case, that the act or
omission played a substantial part in bringing about or
actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury
or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably
probable consequence of the act or omission.”
8. In the instant case, there is no negligence, much less gross
negligence, in order to prosecute the petitioners for the offence under
Section 304 – A IPC. The tendency to fix criminal liability on some person
for accidents of this nature cannot be encouraged. The allegation in the final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
report shows that the impugned proceeding is clearly an abuse of the
process of law.
9. For the above reasons, the impugned final report against the
petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original
Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
06.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
shr
To
1. The Inspector of Police (L&O)
V-1, Villivakkam Police Station,
Chennai-600049.
2.The XIII MM Court Egmore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
shr
Crl.O.P.No.29749 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P. Nos.16065 & 16066 of 2019
06.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
