V. SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No. 742 of 2019 of the Paravur Police Station, Kollam District registered on 06.09.2019 under Sections 308 and 304 of the IPC.

(3.) The applicant is the owner of several captive Elephants and for their care and management, he had employed several mahouts. The accommodation for the mahouts were allegedly provided in a dilapidated building situated near to his residential home. On 06.09.2019, at about 3 a.m, due to massive rains, the eastern wall of the building caved in and the mahouts were trapped under the debris. The investigation revealed that laterite stones were unloaded outside the eastern wall and due to the rains, the stones became wet and the transferred weight was too much for the Eastern wall to support. Two of the mahouts suffered fatal injuries and their lives could not be saved. Three of the mahouts had suffered serious injuries. Based on the information furnished by one of the mahouts, the subject crime was registered. Sri.V. Venugopalan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is innocent of the allegations and he had no role to play in the unfortunate incident which took place on 6.9.2019. According to the learned counsel, the mahouts were provided accommodation elsewhere and it was without his knowledge that they had stayed in the office of an auditorium building. According to the learned counsel, in order to attract the offence under Section 304 of the IPC, it has to be shown prima facie that the applicant had intention to commit the offence or it was committed with the knowledge that death would ensue. Even to make out an offence under section 304A of the IPC, it has to be shown that the death had occurred due to any negligent act or reckless act on the part of the accused. According to the learned counsel, there is no element of knowledge or intention on the part of the applicant. To bolster his submissions, the learned counsel has referred to the decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Chittarammal, 2007 (10) SCC 792, Mahadev Prasad Kasushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [AIR 2009 SC 125], Tarseem Chand v. State [Delhi Administration], [1985 (2) Crimes 948], Cheruban Gregory v. State of Bihar, [AIR 1964 SC 205] and Baldev Raj Kapur v. State, [2009 CriLJ 1418]. He would take pains to point out that the instant is a pure case of accident and the applicant had no role to play.