Death Occurred Owing To Forest Fire Which Is In Nature Of Vis Major: Supreme Court Discharges Forester in Kurangani Fire Case
The Supreme Court was considering a discharge application filed by the appellant, who was employed as a Forester in the Kottagudi Division.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has discharged a forester in a case of forest fire that occurred in Tamil Nadu’s Kurangani area, leading to the death of trekkers. The Apex Court held that the deaths occurred owing to a forest fire, which was in the nature of a vis major.
The Apex Court was considering a discharge application filed by the appellant, who was employed as a Forester in the Kottagudi Division.
The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R.Mahadevan held,“In the instant case, we have held that the death occurred owing to a forest fire which is in the nature of a vis majeure, therefore, the said Section does not apply to the facts of the case.”
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu represented the appellant while Sr. A.A.G. V.Krishnamurthy represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant, who is the first accused, was employed as a Forester in the Kottagudi Division, Theni District, Tamil Nadu. He was also entrusted with the additional charge of the Mandal Division. A trekking organisation under the name “Chennai Trekking Club” led by the third accused, Peter Van Geit, had, along with other members of the said Club, in commemoration of Women’s Day, organised a group of 27 individuals for a trekking expedition from Kolukkumalai to Kurangani. Upon reaching Othamara in the southern part of Kurangani, the entire Kurangani region was engulfed in a forest fire. In an attempt to escape the fire, some members of the trekking group fell into a nearby ditch, sustained burn injuries, and subsequently succumbed to death. As per the prosecution, on the same day, the second accused, Prabhu, who is also the complainant, brought another trekking group of 11 people from Erode. The appellant/first accused instructed one Ranjith, who was familiar with the area, to accompany the trekking group to Kurangini. While on their way to Kurangani, the trekking group purchased trekking passes for Rs 200 per person at the Forest Department Check Post in Mundal.
While on their way, information was received that a forest fire was spreading, and in order to escape the forest fire, Ranjith guided the group to the restricted forest area. By that time, the forest fire had completely engulfed the area, due to which nine people died, and the remaining were injured. Based on the aforesaid facts, a complaint was submitted by the second accused, which came to be registered with the Police Station under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). After the initial investigation, by way of an alteration report, under Section 174, the case of the CrPC was altered into Sections 336, 337, 338 and 304 (Part II) of the Indian 4 Penal Code (IPC) and Section 21(d) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against three persons, adding the appellant as the two accused persons, namely Prabhu (accused 2) and Peter Van Geit (accused 3), under Sections 338, 304 (Part II), 326 and 304A of the IPC.
A criminal case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court and was later made over to the Trial Court. Thereafter, the third accused approached the Court and the proceedings were quashed against him. Meanwhile, the appellant had also filed a discharge petition, but the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court held that a specific role was alleged against the appellant as well as his watcher, Ranjith. According to the High Court, there was sufficient material available to proceed against the appellant in the present case. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the sections, the Bench noted that the same applies only when there is commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and when the said Act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The Bench held that the death occurred owing to a forest fire which was in the nature of a vis major.
“Moreover, Section 326 deals with voluntary causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. We fail to understand as to how the said Section applies in the instant case as we reiterate that the deaths occurred in the instant case owing to the forest fire”, it added.
The Bench also noted that in Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2024, it was held that Sections 304A and 338 also did not apply to the appellant, third accused therein. “In the circumstances, we find that the Sessions Court as well as the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant herein rather than holding that the appellant – accused had to face the trial merely because he was employed as a Forester in Kottagudi Division, Theni District, Tamil Nadu”, it held.
The Bench thus allowed the application filed by the appellant and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. “The appellant is discharged from the offences alleged against him”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Jeyasingh v. The State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1422)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, AOR M.P. Parthiban, Advocates Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K, Shivansh Sharma, Rohan Singh, Abhishek S
Respondent: Sr. A.A.G. V.Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Samridhi Srivastava, Danish Saifi