RAJAN Vs JOSEPH .
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,KURIAN JOSEPH,R. BANUMATHI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000582-000582 / 2015
Diary number: 39420 / 2013
Advocates: SAJITH. P Vs
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1632/2014)
RAJAN …Appellant
Versus
JOSEPH & ORS. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J .
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by way of special appeal arises out of
judgment dated 20.3.2013, passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Crl. M. C. No.1325 of 2007, allowing the application
filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quashing the proceeding initiated against
the respondents in C.C. No.994 of 2006 u/s 304A IPC, pending
before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur, Thrissur District,
Kerala.
3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as
under:- The appellant herein is the husband of the deceased-
Page 2
2
Ammini, who was working as a maid for more than five years in the
house of the respondents No.1 & 2. Ammini died on 15.4.2005 due
to electric shock allegedly sustained by her while working on
washing machine in the house of the respondents No. 1 & 2.
Initially, the case was registered by the Mathilakam Police as
“unnatural death” u/s 174 Cr.P.C, but after investigation ‘refer
report’ was filed, stating that it was “accidental death”. The
appellant filed a private complaint before the JMFC and the
Magistrate took cognizance of the case u/s 304A IPC and issued
summons to the respondents. The respondents approached the
High Court, praying for quashing the case pending before JMFC.
High Court allowed the application thereby quashing the
proceedings initiated against respondents under Section 304A IPC.
In this appeal, appellant assails the correctness of the said order.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant and
the respondents.
5. The appellant alleged that due to rash and negligent act
of the respondents No.1 & 2, deceased-Ammini died. It is
undisputed that deceased was working as a maid for the last five
years in the house of respondents. On 15.4.2005, the deceased
died due to electric shock in the washing machine while working in
Page 3
3
the house of the respondents No. 1 & 2. To prove the charge under
Section 304A IPC, it is necessary to establish the guilt of
respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. the accused, acted in a negligent manner
in not taking reasonable care of their washing machine and caused
the death of deceased-Ammini due to electric shock.
6. After due enquiry, the Electric Inspector has given his
report dated 23.02.2006, in which he has reported that there is a
single phase current connection in the house of the respondents
No.1 & 2. He has further reported that although body of the
washing machine was eleven years old but when the insulation
value was taken, it was found that there is no possibility of current
leakage in the washing machine. It was also reported that by
mistake deceased might have tried to turn on and off the switch
with wet hands and at that time she might have come into contact
with the live portion behind the plug and died due to electric shock.
As seen from the certificate issued from Modern Hospital,
Kodungallur, the respondents immediately rushed to the hospital to
save the life of the deceased and she was declared dead by the
Doctor-CW3. Considering the materials on record, we concur with
the views expressed by the High Court that no offence under
Section 304A IPC is made out and in our view, the High Court has
Page 4
4
rightly quashed the proceedings initiated before JMFC.
7. Although no rash or negligent act is noticed on the part of
the respondents, the fact remains that the deceased-Ammini was
doing the household work for the respondents No.1 & 2 and
working as per the instructions of the respondents at the relevant
time. As the death of the deceased was caused on account of the
operation of the washing machine, the respondents No.1 & 2, who
engaged Ammini for the said work are liable to compensate the
deceased. It is to be noted that the object of providing
compensation in this case is to help the family of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the State of Kerala has produced a letter No.
16770/J2/2015/Home dated 20.03.2015 from Home (J) Department
of Government of Kerala for our perusal, as per which the State
Government has decided to sanction an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to
the appellant from Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund. The
deceased belonged to a lower strata of the society, in the interest of
justice, in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to direct the
respondents No.1 & 2 also to pay compensation to the appellant.
8. As decided by the State Government, the third
respondent-State of Kerala shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
Page 5
5
from Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund to the appellant.
Additionally, the respondents No. 1 & 2 shall pay a compensation
of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant within a period of four weeks from
today. With the above direction, this appeal is disposed of.
………………….J. (T.S. Thakur)
………………….J. (Kurian Joseph)
………………….J. (R. Banumathi)
New Delhi, April 8, 2015