Mahalingappa vs The State of Karnataka Criminal Revision Petition 2217/2011, decided on 4 December 2020. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/353870/1/CRLRP2217-11-04-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: A careful understanding of requirement under section 304A are that there must be a direct nexus between death of a person and a rash and negligent act of accused. A remote nexus is not enough for the purpose of criminal law, there are degrees of negligence and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before a charge can be sustained under this section. A mere negligence is not enough to bring a case within the ambit and scope of these sections. Negligence or rashness must be such as carrying with him a criminal liability. Criminal rashness is a hazard of dangerous act with the knowledge that it is so, and that the which may cause an injury. Therefore it is necessary for prosecution to establish that act of accused is rash or negligent and by such act death has occurred and that act does not amount to culpable homicide. Therefore question is, whether in the facts and circumstances of present case and material on record, act of respondent can be said to be rash or negligent.
24..As stated earlier, it is case of the prosecution that accused has been implicated in the present case for the reason that he was in-charge as a Section Officer of that particular area where the incident occurred and that he is responsible for the electric lines and it is his duty to maintain the electric lines so that it does not lead to any untoward incident.
25. Admittedly, it is not the case of PW.1 or PW.4, the grand- father and father of minor boy that accused herein is directly responsible for death of the minor boy. In fact, in the evidence, they have clearly stated that they do not know who is responsible for the cause of death and it is further stated that they do not even attribute the mistake of KPTCL but they are of the opinion that it should have been checked by the responsible persons of KPTCL. Therefore, there is no clear cut criminal rashness or negligence attributed directly to accused herein. In the present case, it has to be seen whether there is a direct nexus between the accused in the cause of death of minor boy Prashant.
26. Criminal negligence is gross and culpable negligence or failure to exercise that reasonable and probable care and precaution to guard against the injury either to public generally and or to individual in particular.
33. In view of the above, the judgments of Hon’ ble Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate bench of this Court, it is crystal clear that to attract the provisions of Section 304 -A, there has to be a direct nexus of gross criminal negligence or culpable negligence or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and that such act is so directly attributable to the rashness and negligence of accused and such act of accused is the proximate cause of death. In the present case on hand, there is no allegation that the death of the minor boy Prashant was the direct result of any act or omission on the part of accused.
Appeal allowed.
Cases referred. (2015) 12 SCC 781, Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane, AIR 1972 SC 1150, Ambalal D. Bhatt vs. The State of Gujarat; AIR 1965 SC 1616, Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1979 SC 1848, Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka; (2012) 5 SCC 661, Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited; 2013 AIR SCW 26, Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another vs. State of Maharashtra; 2007 Crl. L. J. 486, B. E. Chandrashekar and others vs. State of Karnataka; Crl. Rev.Pet. No. 818 of 2017 dated 9:2:2018 Ajay Kharbanda vs Central Bureau of Investigation.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 