STATE OF GUJARAT A vs HAIDARALI KALUBHAI

Advertisements

Facts of the case 

• The incident occurred on August 23, 1969.
• The location was near a highway between Mehsana and Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
• The petitioner was the State of Gujarat A.
• The respondent and defendant in the case was Haidarali Kalubhai.
• Haidarali Kalubhai, the accused, previously drove a specific truck (GTF 904) and had access to its key.
• On the mentioned date, he used the key of his tractor to start the parked truck GTF 904 and drove it at full speed with the headlights on.
• The truck’s conductor Usman Imamali, , an employee of the truck owner, was present in the vehicle during this incident.
• The accused drove the truck at a high speed and attempted to turn onto a kutcha road.
• In the process, the truck collided with a cot on which the village Sarpanch was resting.
• The impact resulted in the Sarpanch being thrown a considerable distance, causing severe injuries.
• Unfortunately, the Sarpanch succumbed to his injuries at a later time.
• Additionally, two policemen were injured as they jumped from a nearby cot to avoid the collision’s impact.
• The prosecution alleged that there was enmity between the deceased Sarpanch and the accused, particularly related to Panchayat elections.
• This alleged enmity was presented as a possible motive for the accused’s actions.
• The prosecution sought to establish a case of deliberate and willful driving of the truck towards the cot with the intention of causing the Sarpanch’s death.
• Usman Imamali the conductor, was a witness who testified to the events, including the accused driving the truck at high speed and the subsequent collision.
• The accused stated that the truck went out of control due to a stuck accelerator while attempting to make a turn onto the kutcha road.
• He emphasized that the collision with the cot was a consequence of this loss of control and not a deliberate act.
• The accused contended that he lost control of the truck due to the accelerator issue while attempting to take a turn onto the kutcha road.
• The collision with the cot was attributed to this loss of control, disassociating it from a deliberate act.

Issues of the case 

1. The primary legal issue is determining the appropriate charge against the accused. It involves assessing whether the act of the accused constituted culpable homicide (as per Section 299 or Section 300 IPC) or a rash or negligent act (Section 304A IPC). The outcome depends on establishing the intent, knowledge, or recklessness of the accused at the time of the incident.
2. Establishing the mental state of the accused at the time of driving the truck is crucial. Whether there was an intent to cause harm or death or whether the accused had the knowledge that his actions were likely to result in harm or death needs to be determined.
3. The alleged enmity between the accused and the deceased due to Panchayat elections raises a legal issue regarding motive. It needs to be explored if this alleged motive is substantiated by evidence and if it directly influenced the accused’s actions during the incident.

The petitioner, State of Gujarat A, argued the following points in the case:

• The petitioner contended that the accused’s actions constituted an offense under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the gravity of the incident.
• The petitioner argued that the accused willfully drove the truck towards the cot, intending to cause harm or death to the Sarpanch, pointing to the alleged enmity over Panchayat elections.
• The prosecution asserted that the accused had a motive for causing harm, citing the existing enmity between the accused and the deceased, particularly in the context of the Panchayat elections.
• The petitioner contended that the accused’s actions went beyond negligence, constituting a deliberate and intentional act aimed at causing harm to the Sarpanch.
• The petitioner highlighted the severe impact of the collision, emphasizing the resultant fatal injuries sustained by the Sarpanch, to underscore the gravity of the accused’s actions.
• The petitioner argued that the accused, by driving the truck at high speed and causing the collision, violated traffic regulations and breached the standard of care expected on the road.

The defendant, Haidarali Kalubhai, argued the following points in the case:

• The defendant asserted that the incident occurred due to a mechanical issue, specifically a stuck accelerator, which led to a loss of control over the truck.
• The defendant contended that there was no intent or willful act on their part to cause harm or death to the Sarpanch. The collision was a result of an unintended mechanical malfunction.
• The defendant emphasized that the collision with the cot was not a deliberate act but an unfortunate consequence of the mechanical issue, refuting the claim of a willful and intentional act.
• The defense challenged the alleged motive presented by the prosecution, stating that the accused did not harbor any intent or motive to harm the Sarpanch based on enmity related to the Panchayat elections.
• The defense argued that the presence of the truck conductor (Usman Imamali, PW 11) at the time of the incident corroborates the fact that the accused did not intend any harm, as the conductor’s safety was also at risk.
• The defense contended that the accused was not in violation of traffic regulations and had the appropriate license to drive the truck, thus dismissing claims of negligence based on traffic violations.

Judgment 

• The court determined that the offense falls under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) rather than Section 304 Part II.
• Section 304A addresses cases where death results from a rash or negligent act, distinct from culpable homicide under Sections 299 and 300 IPC.
• Section 304A, by its own definition, excludes the need to establish intent or knowledge as required for culpable homicide.
• Intent or knowledge being the direct motivating force for culpable homicide, Section 304A applies when they are not the primary factors.
• The court found that the accused’s actions more reasonably aligned with a loss of control over the vehicle at high speed while attempting a turn.
• The collision with the cot, leading to fatal injuries, did not reveal the accused’s intention or deliberate act.
• The alleged motive related to enmity was not considered substantiated, as the evidence did not support it.
• The court concluded that the case falls under Section 304A IPC, ruling in favor of the respondent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India determined that the case falls under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses cases of causing death by a rash or negligent act. The Court emphasized that the incident did not involve the deliberate intent or knowledge required for culpable homicide under Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The accused’s actions were characterized as a loss of control over the speeding vehicle while attempting a turn, resulting in an unintentional collision with a cot and subsequent fatal injuries to the victim. The alleged motive of enmity was not substantiated by the evidence presented. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the respondent, affirming the application of Section 304A IPC in this case.

 Written by ADITYA SINGH, University Of Lucknow an intern under legal vidhiya.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

https://ww.scconline.com

Written by ADITYA SINGH, University Of Lucknow an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin