After Lorry Crash Kills Two, Madras HC Alters Driver’s Two 304 Part II Convictions To 304A, Citing No Intoxication Proof And His Unfamiliarity With The Area

On 6 March 2016, the appellant drove a lorry into a crowd near Government Hospital, Andipatti, then collided with vehicles and electric poles before being intercepted at a nearby checkpost.

Two persons died and four were injured.

The trial court convicted him under Sections 279, 304 Part II (two counts), and 337 (four counts) of the IPC, and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act; it acquitted him under Section 427 IPC.

It imposed seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine for each Section 304 Part II count, and fines for the Section 337 counts.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, disputing proof of intoxication and identification, and alternatively contending that the facts supported, at most, an offence of causing death by negligence.

Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires proof that the driver’s blood-alcohol content exceeded the statutory limit of 30 mg per 100 ml, through a breath-analyser test or laboratory test of blood.

Section 304 Part II IPC requires knowledge that the act is likely to cause death; rashness or negligence, even if gross, does not by itself establish that knowledge.

Section 304A IPC applies where death is caused by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

The Court considered *Alistair Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra*, distinguishing it on its facts, and relied on *Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala* concerning the distinction between culpable homicide and death caused by negligence, and the statutory maximum sentence under Section 304A.

It also invoked Section 31 CrPC to order consecutive sentences for the deaths of two different persons.

The eyewitness evidence, including that of PW-1 and injured witnesses, established that the appellant was driving the lorry rashly and negligently; his immediate interception and the vehicle-inspection evidence also supported identification and the account of the collisions.

However, the absence of a breath or blood test, together with the doctor’s lack of a specific opinion and the police-made endorsement on the certificate, made intoxication and the Section 185 charge unsafe to find proved.

The Court therefore declined to infer the knowledge required by Section 304 Part II from intoxication.

The sketch showed the lorry turning right after the initial impact, plausibly to avoid further harm; the appellant’s subsequent flight, though reckless, was consistent with panic and did not independently establish knowledge that death was likely.

The proved conduct supported Section 304A instead.

The two convictions under Section 304 Part II IPC were altered to convictions under Section 304A IPC, with two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 for each count; the prison terms were ordered to run consecutively, and the trial court’s default sentence was maintained.

The convictions and fines under Section 337 IPC (four counts) and the conviction under Section 279 IPC were upheld; the appellant was acquitted of the Section 185 Motor Vehicles Act charge.

His bail bonds were cancelled, he was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence, and he was granted set-off for imprisonment already undergone.