Section 304A IPC| Gross Negligence Led To Loss Of Human Life: SC Modifies Sentence Of A Man For Causing Death Of Police Constable
The Supreme Court has partly allowed the appeal of a man under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) emphasising that his actions were neglectful and rash, leading to gross negligence on the part of the accused which led to the death of another person.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal noted, “However, there is a failure on the part of the appellant who was holding a sophisticated automatic weapon to ensure that the change lever was always kept in a safety position. This was the minimum care that he was expected to take while he approached the deceased. Thus, there is gross negligence on the part of the appellant which led to a loss of human life. Due to his rash and negligent act, the deceased lost his life”.
Advocate Prerna Mehta appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Shreekant Neelappa Terdal appeared for the Respondent.
The deceased was a constable in the police force, who came into the reporting room and started talking on the official telephone. After multiple people requested the deceased to end the call as the police station might receive important calls, but the deceased refused to. After that, the Accused, who was carrying a Semi-Automatic Fire (SAF) - carbine, went to the deceased to request the same. The Accused and the deceased got into a quarrel and the SAF got entangled in the chain attached to the Accused’s belt which led to the accidental firing of five rounds in the neck of the deceased leading to his death.
The Court observed that the Accused did not keep the change lever in a safety position, which led to the SAF getting stuck in his belt and causing the accidental firing.
In this context, the Court held, “Going by the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it will have to be held that the SAF got entangled with the chain attached to the belt of the appellant. Considering the opinion of the expert, it is obvious that when the incident occurred, the change lever was not kept in a safety position by the appellant and therefore, SAF got cocked which resulted in the firing of five bullets. The appellant must take the blame for not taking the elementary precaution of keeping the change lever in the safety position”.
Additionally, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the intention of the accused in causing the death of the deceased. Therefore, the Court noted that the case cannot fall under Section 299 of the IPC as the ingredients of the section are unfulfilled.
“The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause his death…The knowledge of the possibility of the deceased who was himself a policeman pulling SAF carbine cannot be attributed to the appellant. In fact, the appellant could not have imagined that the deceased would do anything like this. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination, it is a case of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of IPC as the existence of none of the three ingredients incorporated therein was proved by the prosecution”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and held the accused guilty under Section 304A of the IPC.
Cause Title: Arvind Kumar v. State of NCT, Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 622)
