Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an anticipatory application filed by the present accused under Section 4821 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara, J., held that when a dangerous public stunt causes death, it would come under the ambit of culpable homicide since there was requisite knowledge that such an act would likely cause death and it would not be considered as death by negligence. Holding this, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Background
An FIR was registered under Sections 1052 and 3(5)3 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) against the accused. The complainant alleged that he and his grandson, the deceased, were at their home when the present accused and two other accused came and took the deceased with them. When the deceased did not return home for a long time, the complainant and his nephew began searching for him.
In this search, they found out that the deceased and another accused person had gone on a motorcycle and the present accused had gone on a tractor with other accused. When the complainant and his nephew reached the place of the incident, they saw that other accused was riding the motorcycle and the deceased for a pillion rider. Thereafter, the present accused did a stunt by lifting the front portion of the tractor in the air, and at the same time, other accused applied the brakes of the motorcycle. This caused the front part of the tractor to fall upon the deceased who suffered fatal injuries.AnalysisAfter perusing the video of the incident and the reply of the State wherein it was stated that the tractor of the present accused was modified to increase acceleration, the Court noted that the video clearly showed that the present accused and other accused were driving a tractor on a public road at a dangerously high speed and doing motorsports.
The Court held that when someone does stunts on a public road thereby endangering public safety and without the knowledge of the traffic control authorities, then if such stunt leads to death it would fall in the definition of culpable homicide, and if death is not caused, then it would amount to an attempt to cause culpable homicide. The Court further held that such acts would not fall under Section 1064 of BNS due to requisite knowledge that such an act would likely result in or cause death.
The Court said that there was no reason to believe that the drivers were unaware of the consequences of doing motorsports with a modified vehicle on a public road, hence, their conduct depicted a callous and unconcerned attitude toward the pedestrians and other vehicles on the road. Thus, such an act would not fall under rash and negligent driving, but prima facie would amount to culpable homicide.The Court noted that in the present case, the tractor was modified to increase acceleration and was being driven at high speed on a public road. Thus, the Court held that there was prima facie involvement of the present accused so no case for anticipatory bail was made out and rejected the application.After stating the above, the Court clarified that the observations made herein are neither an expression of opinion on the case’s merits nor shall the Trial Court advert to them.[Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 14354, decided on 19-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Advocate Amardeep Singh
For the respondent: AAG Sukhdev Singh and Advocate Nikhil Ghai
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Section 304 of the Penal Code, 1860
3. Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860
4. Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860
