BARAIYA ALPABEN BHAVESHBHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21554 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
BARAIYA ALPABEN BHAVESHBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS URMILA N DESAI(5609) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 03/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(the Code) the applicant has filed this applicant praying for to
quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-115 of 2013, registered
with ‘A’ Division Police Station, Bhavnagar and further, to quash
and set aside the Charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and all
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
consequential proceedings.
1.1 It appears that initially, the FIR was filed for the offence
punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocity Act), however,
Charge-sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 304
of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act.
2. Short facts of the case are that on 10.06.2013, on reopening of
the school after vacation, both the sons namely Hardik, aged 15
years and Rahul, aged 13 years, of the de facto complainant went to
the school in the morning, however, at about 12:45 p.m., his
younger son - Rahul returned to the home and informed the de
facto complainant that Hardik was lying at the parking of the
school and hence, the de facto complainant along with younger son
Rahul went to the school, where they found that elder son - Hardik
was lying unconscious and people had gathered there, from
whom, the de facto complainant came to know that his son got
electrocuted. Hardik was rushed to the hospital in 108 Ambulance
where, a scooter key was found from his possession and upon
asking about the same to younger son Rahul, it was informed that
in the recess, Hardik was asked by one of the staffer to park his
vehicle, and while parking, Hardik electrocuted due to live electric
wire lying, connecting GEB electric pole. At the hospital, the
doctor on duty declared Hardik dead. Thus, on the said facts, the
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
FIR in question is filed.
3. Heard, learned advocate for the applicant, learned advocate
for the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that on
a bare reading of the FIR in question, no offence either under
Section 304 or Section 304A of the IPC is made out as there is no
element of culpable homicide with intention or knowledge on the
part of the applicant to commit any offence culminating into the
death of the deceased – student. He would submit that from a
perusal of the Charge-sheet papers it would reveal that as the
young boy was electrocuted because of the live electric wire, the
responsibility of the same was on the shoulder of the concerned
electricity company and negligence on their part cannot be
attributed to the present applicant inasmuch as, the present
applicant had only handed over the keys to the deceased who had
sought permission to go washroom which was granted by the
applicant, however, also had handed over the keys of the two
wheeler to him asking him to park the same under the tree since it
was raining.
3.2 The learned advocate for the applicant would rely upon a
decision of this Court in Yunusbhai Anwarbhia Karodia v. State of
Gujarat, 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 238752 , to buttress his argument that
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
neither the provisions of Section 304 nor of Section 304A of the IPC
are attracted and thus, argued to allow this application.
4. Per contra , learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - de
facto complainant would submit that it was the duty of the
applicant – teacher not the handover the keys of two wheeler to a
student – deceased even for parking the same under the tree and
had she not handed over the keys to the deceased, the unfortunate
incident of loss of life of the deceased would not have happened
and thus, it is submitted that there is a proximate cause in handing
over the keys of two wheeler to a student and the death of the
deceased, for which, the provisions of Section 304 or 304A of the
IPC are attracted and thus, it is urged to reject this application.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent –
State would submit that the applicant would not have handed
over the keys of two wheeler to the deceased, even for parking,
more so when it was raining. Further, the record reveals that she
even did not care to see as to whether the student – deceased
returned or not and thus, he argued that knowledge that the act of
handing over the keys of the two wheeler to the student would
likely to cause death would certainly attract Part-II of Section 304
of the IPC.
5.1 Referring to the Charge-sheet papers, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor submitted that there are statements of the
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
witnesses to the effect that the deceased was handed over the two
wheeler keys and it was also found from the possession of the
deceased child and in such circumstances, negligence is directly
attributable to the present applicant and thus, argued to reject this
application.
6. Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties and gone
through the FIR impugned herein as well as the Charge-sheet
papers.
6.1 The learned advocate for the applicant has relied on decision
in Yunusbhai Anwarbhia Karodia (supra), the relevant of which is
required to be taken note of in facts of the present case. If the facts
of cited case are gone through, the ASI, Khatodara Police Station,
Surat, received a telephonic vardhi from the Apple Hospital, Surat
informing that one patient by name Fatima Yunus Karodia, aged 5
years, while travelling along with her father i.e. the applicant in his
car, suffered an injury on her neck as she raised her head out of the
sunroof of the car and her throat got slit by a string used for flying
the kite. In the said facts of the case, after referring to various
pronouncements and the provisions of law, the Court quashed the
FIR against the father of the deceased. In the present case, what
has been alleged is that, on reopening of the school after vacation,
the deceased went to the school, where, during class, he asked
permission to go washroom, which was granted by the applicant
herein, however, he was also given keys of the two wheeler and
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
asked to park the same under a tree since it was raining outside
and that, as per the case, he then found lying unconscious near the
gate and died due to electrocution on account of live electric wire
lying connecting the GEB electric pole at the spot. Accordingly, it
would be apt to refer to paragraph 15 of the decision in Yunusbhai
Anwarbhia Karodia (supra) , which reads as under :
“15. In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A of the
I.P.C., the Court has to examine whether the alleged act of the
accused is a direct result of a rash and negligent act, and that act
was the proximate and efficient cause of the death without the
intervention of others' negligence. To put it in other words,
whether the mere fact that the applicant being the father of the
deceased, permitted his daughter to take her head out through the
sun roof by itself, is sufficient to bring the case within the purview
of Section 304A of the I.P.C.”
6.2 In the case on hand, the applicant being a teacher of the
deceased permitted him to go for washroom and also handed over
the keys of her two wheeler to park the same under a tree since it
was raining outside, by itself is not sufficient to bring the case
within the purview of Section 304A IPC, since the applicant’s act,
as alleged by the prosecution, is that, she was negligent in handing
over the keys and was also having knowledge that if the keys are
handed over, there was likelihood of causing death if the student
would have used the vehicle. Though the fact of a young child
aged 15 years has lost his life is very painful, but the applicant
must not even have thought that deceased would get electrocuted
while parking the two wheeler. What is to be seen is that is there
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
any immediate cause that last link in the chain of causation as
opposed to remote cause. Thus, handing over the keys has to be in
proximity with the death. If the act or omission has played a
substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the death
and that the death was either direct result or a reasonable probable
consequence of the act of the present applicant is to be seen. Thus,
imposing criminal liability under Section 304A of the IPC, it is
necessary that the death should have been the direct result of the
rash and negligence of the accused and in turn, such act must be
the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of
other’s negligence. The death of the deceased, in the case on hand,
in the considered opinion of the Court, has no direct bearing on
the rash or negligent act on the part of the applicant nor was it
proximate and efficient cause, without the intervention of other’s
negligence, inasmuch as, mere negligence cannot be construed to
mean harshness, more particularly, criminal rashness or criminal
negligence must of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard
knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was
most likely to be occasioned thereby. The criminality, thus, lies in
running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and
indifference to the consequences. If the case on hand is tested on
the aforesaid principles, it cannot be said that the applicant had
failed to exercise that care and failure to take that precaution
which having regard to the circumstances, it was imperative duty
of the individual to take since, the act of handing over the keys to
the deceased minor student, who succumbed by the electrocution,
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
not because of the parking of the vehicle but because of the live
wire which could not have even foreseen by the applicant herein.
Thus, the criminality lies in not taking the precautions to prevent
the happening of the consequences in the hope that they may not
happen. The act of criminal rashness lies in wanton act with the
knowledge that it is dangerous and the further knowledge that it
may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or
knowledge that it would probably be caused. This aspect is also
required to be considered keeping in mind that the act of the
accused must be found to be the immediate cause of death, that is
to say, the act and the death must be causa causans .
6.3 Thus, mere negligence or rashness is, therefore, not enough
to bring within the four corners of Section 304A of the IPC but
there must be material on record, collected during the
investigation which necessarily carry criminal liability. The
unfortunate incident has taken away life of a minor innocent child,
however, no case is made out under Section 304A of the IPC.
6.4 When Section 304A is not attracted, which carves out cases
where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act which does
not amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder within
the meaning of Section 299 or culpable homicide amounting to
murder under Section 300, IPC and thus, excludes all the
ingredients of Section 299 as also of Section 300. Where the
intention or knowledge is the motivating force of the act
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
complained of, the question of either attracting Section 304 either
Part-I or Part-2 cannot stand on its legs independently.
6.5 All culpable homicides are murders except in the cases
excepted under Section 300 IPC. Thus, except the cases specifically
exempted under Section 300 IPC, all other acts within the meaning
of Section 299 IPC would amount to committing the offence of
culpable homicide. However, what is important to note is that for
committing the offence of culpable homicide, a positive act must
be done by the doer with the intention that such act would cause
death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or he
having the knowledge that by such an act, death may be caused.
What, therefore, is significant is that the doer of the act must have
the intention of causing death or the intention of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death or has the knowledge that
by doing such an act he is likely to cause death. Therefore, to
commit the offence of culpable homicide, intention or knowledge
is of crucial importance.
6.6 Section 304 Part II IPC, would be attracted if anyone commits
culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the 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. Therefore, the requirement of Section 304 Part II
IPC is that the doer must have the knowledge that the act
performed is likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death.
Thus, the basic ingredient of Section 304 Part II IPC is presence of
knowledge and absence of intention. The doer must have the
knowledge that the act performed by him would likely cause
death etc but there should not be any intention to cause death.
6.7 From the facts on hand, it cannot also be said that the
petitioner had knowledge that by asking the deceased to park her
2-wheeler under a tree as it was raining, she had the knowledge
that such an act was likely to cause the death of the deceased
student. As such, no prima facie case of culpable homicide can be
said to have been made out against the petitioner. If that be so, the
subsequent requirement of having knowledge that the act was
likely to cause the death but not having any intention to cause
death would become irrelevant as there is nothing discernible
from the record of the case that the petitioner had the knowledge
that by asking the student to park her scooter under tree would
likely cause his death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to
cause their death. Therefore, the basic ingredients for commission
of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC are absent in the present
case.
6.8 So far as Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act is concerned,
when the offence punishable under Section either 304 or 304A of
the IPC is not made out, attraction of offence under the Atrocity
Act does not arise.
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/21554/2014 (GJHC240482862014) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
7. For the forgoing reasons, present application deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly, allowed. FIR being C.R. No. I-115 of
2013, registered with ‘A’ Division Police Station, Bhavnagar,
Charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed and set aside qua
the present applicant.
7.1 Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
7.2 It is made clear that compensation, if any, received by the de
facto complainant under the provisions of the Atrocity Act, shall
have no bearing on quashment of the present FIR qua the present
applicant.
7.3 Direct service is permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/4tss3926
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:38:28 IST 2026