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