Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, Kolla Bhovi, was the driver of a lorry involved in a road accident on 20.01.2013, resulting in the death of a cyclist. The complainant, Ummer Sab, alleged that the lorry hit the cyclist from behind. The police filed a charge sheet under Section 304 Part II IPC. The accused filed an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, which was dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur, in Sessions Case No.8/2014 on 23.09.2014. The accused then filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court examined the material on record, including the complaint and charge sheet, and found that there was no evidence to show that the accused drove the lorry rashly or negligently, or that he had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. The court noted that the accident occurred when the cyclist suddenly came onto the road, and the accused could not avoid the collision. The court held that the ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC were not prima facie established, and the trial court's order dismissing the discharge application was erroneous. The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the accused from the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 Part II IPC - Discharge - The accused, driver of a lorry, was involved in a road accident resulting in death of a cyclist. The court held that for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, the prosecution must prima facie establish that the accused had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. Mere involvement in an accident, without evidence of rash or negligent driving, does not attract the offence. The trial court's order dismissing discharge was set aside. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Standard of proof - At the stage of framing of charges, the court is required to consider only the police report and documents sent with it. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the accused shall be discharged. The revisional court can interfere if the trial court's order is perverse or erroneous. (Paras 5-10) C) Evidence - Prima facie case - Road accident - The material on record, including the complaint and charge sheet, did not disclose any overt act by the accused indicating knowledge or intention to cause death. The accident occurred due to the cyclist suddenly coming onto the road. Hence, no prima facie case under Section 304 Part II IPC was made out. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the discharge application of the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC when the material on record does not prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur, in Sessions Case No.8/2014, and discharged the petitioner from the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Law Points
- Section 304 Part II IPC requires proof of knowledge that act is likely to cause death
- mere accident without rashness or negligence not sufficient
- discharge under Section 227 CrPC when no prima facie case
- revisional court can interfere if trial court's order is perverse or erroneous
