State of Karnataka V/s Muralidhar

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2009-03-16
Case No: 428 of 2002
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly
Subject: Criminal Law
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section: 71, 279, 299, 300, 304A and 338
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: Anil Kr. Mishra, A. Rohen Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla et. al. (P) & S.N. Bhat (R)
State of Appellant(s): Karnataka
History of Case No: Judgement and Order dated 21.08.2000 of the High Court of Karnataka, Criminal R. P. No. 64 of 1999
Equal Citation Details :

 AIR2009SC1621, 2009(57)BLJR1232, JT2009(4)SC108, 2009(4)KCCR2303, (2009)43OCR199, RLW2009(4)SC3010, 2009(4)SCALE35, (2009)4SCC463, [2009]5SCR400, 2009(3)UJ1228, 2009ACJ1526, 

Case Note / Description :

The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal". [Para 25] [414-D] 2.1 Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements u/s. 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. [Para 7] [406- F-H] 2.2 A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. [Para 6] [405-G-H; 406-A-B] Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 - referred to. 2.3 Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factOTHERS A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient consi-dering all the circumstances of the case.

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)