Delhi High Court refuses to alter ‘culpable homicide’ charge against teen in Mercedes 2016 hit-and-run case

“The foundational threshold, at this stage, is that the court is only required to examine whether the material placed on record, if taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case regarding the commission of the offence alleged and the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial for the purpose of weighing the evidence,” the April 17 order read.

Justice Amit Mahajan refused to interfere at the prima facie stage and upheld the framing of notice under Section 304 Part II IPC against the petitioner.

The Delhi High Court found no ground to interfere with the said orders of JJB, holding that the material on record prima facie discloses the ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide with knowledge). 

It held that it was appropriate for the JJB to frame notice for the said offence, leaving it open to the board, upon conclusion of inquiry, to determine whether the evidence ultimately sustains the charge or whether the case falls within the ambit of a lesser offence such as Section 304A IPC (causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide).

Knowledge of causing death 

• The Delhi High Court refused to interfere at the prima facie stage and upheld the framing of notice under Section 304 Part II IPC against the petitioner.
• It further directed that the Juvenile Justice Board shall independently assess the evidence and determine the appropriate offence, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.
• The Court pointed out that the distinction between Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 304A IPC lies in the mental element accompanying the act.
• The high court pointed out that the distinction between section 304 Part II and section 304A  IPC lies in the mental element accompanying the act. 
• While Section 304A contemplates death caused by rash or negligent conduct, Section 304 Part II is attracted where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, though without any intention to cause death. 
• For attracting Section 304 Part II, the knowledge required is of a higher degree, namely, the awareness that the act is likely to cause death in all probability. 
• The high court pointed out that the “knowledge” in this context denotes an awareness of the likelihood of fatal consequences arising from the act committed. 
• Such knowledge is ordinarily inferred from the nature of the act, the surrounding circumstances, and the degree of risk inherent in the conduct. 
• The high court then highlighted that the distinction, therefore, lies not merely in the presence of knowledge, but in the degree of probability of death contemplated by the accused. 

Driving rashly, a pedestrian’s death

The case arises from a fatal road accident on April 4, 2016, where a Mercedes car driven by a child in conflict with the law allegedly hit a pedestrian, who later succumbed to injuries.

It was alleged that during the inquiry, the owner of the vehicle was traced and found to be the father of the petitioner. 

Initially, the driver employed by the petitioner’s father claimed to be driving the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. 

However, during interrogation, it was revealed that the vehicle was allegedly being driven by the present petitioner, who was 17 years, 11 months and 26 days old at the time of the incident.

During the investigation, eyewitnesses stated that the car was being driven at a very high speed, and the victim was thrown into the air upon impact. It was also alleged that several minors were inside the car and fled the scene after the accident. 

It was alleged that the petitioner had a history of traffic violations, and his father also did not stop him from driving the car. 

The CCTV footage obtained allegedly demonstrated that the offending vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and in a manner endangering human life. 

It was further alleged that during the investigation, the petitioner’s Mercedes had also met with an accident with the vehicle of one Varun Jain on February 16, 2016, and the petitioner managed to settle the matter by a compromise settlement.

A chargesheet was filed on May 14, 2016, under sections of the IPC and the Motor Vehicle Act, since there was sufficient material to demonstrate that the petitioner had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) later framed charges under Section 304 Part II IPC (knowledge-based culpable homicide) and Motor Vehicles Act provisions (driving without a licence, etc)

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the framing of notice.