RAJAN v. JOSEPH & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: T.S. Thakur
Kurian Joseph
R. Banumathi
Judgment Date: 2015-04-08
Court Decision / Holding: No offence under Section 304A IPC is made out. However, in the interest of justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, the respondents are directed to pay compensation: the State of Kerala to pay Rs. 1,00,000 from the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund; respondents 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 1,00,000 within four weeks. The appeal is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajan

Respondents

Joseph & Ors.
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sidhartha Dave
• Sajith P.

Counsels for Respondents

• M. T. George
• Kavitha K. T.
• Santosh Subramanyan
• K. J. Joby
• T. G. Narayanan Nair
• K. N. Madhusoodhanan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from Kerala HC’s quashing of a criminal case under Section 304A IPC, initiated against the respondents for the death of Ammini, a domestic worker who died due to an electric shock while using a washing machine. The appellant contends that the death resulted from the rash and negligent act of the respondents in providing or maintaining the washing machine, and thus the case should proceed under 304A IPC. The High Court had quashed the proceedings, finding no rash or negligent act by the respondents after the Electric Inspector reported no current leakage and suggested the possibility that the deceased may have touched a live part with wet hands. The Supreme Court, while agreeing that no offence under 304A IPC was made out on the materials gathered, nevertheless recognizes a role for remedial justice. In exercise of Article 142, the Court directs compensation to be paid to the appellant: Rs. 1,00,000 from the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund by the State of Kerala, and Rs. 1,00,000 by the respondents 1 and 2 within four weeks. The decision emphasizes that, though criminal liability under 304A is not established, the object of compensation in such cases is to assist the family of the deceased. The appeal is disposed of with these directives."

Provisions of Law Cited

Penal Code, 1860: Section 304ACode of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 174Constitution of India: Article 142

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the death of Ammini occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of respondents 1 & 2 in the operation/maintenance of the washing machine. To prove the charge under Section 304A IPC, it is necessary to establish that the respondents acted negligently by failing to exercise reasonable care in relation to the washing machine, which caused the death. The appellant challenges the quashing of proceedings under 304A IPC and seeks criminal liability unless the evidence clearly rules it out, urging that the domestic employment relationship and use of the appliance point to negligence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there was no rash or negligent act by them. Electric Inspector’s report indicated a single-phase connection and no leakage, suggesting the possibility that the deceased may have touched a live part with wet hands. The High Court correctly quashed the 304A proceedings. Although the death occurred in the course of household work, the respondents argue that there is no sufficient basis to frame a charge under 304A IPC; the appropriate remedy, if any, is compensation rather than criminal liability.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A [2015]4S.C.R.177 ## RAJAN v. ## JOSEPH & ORS. ## Criminal Appeal No. 582 of2015 B ## APRIL08, 2015 **[T.S. THAKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]** c - - _Penal Code, 1860: s.304A Accidental death Victimdeceased working as maid died due to electric shock while working on washing machine in the house of respondents_ - _Complaint uls.304A_ - _Cognizance of offence_ - _High Court_ o - _quashed the proceedings Held: The .evidence showed that_ - _there was no rash and negligent act on part of respondents After the incident, respondents had even immediately rushed to hospital to save the life of the deceased- High Court rightly held that offence uls. 304A was not made out_ - _However in_ E _the interest of justice, respondents are directed to pay_ - _compensation to the family of the deceased Constitution oflndia, 1950 -Article 142._ ## **Disposing of the appeal, the Court** F **HELD: 1. After due enquiry, the Electric Inspector gave his report, in which he reported that there was a single phase current connection in the house of the respondents 1 and 2. He further reported that although** G **body of the washing machine was eleven years old but when the insulation value was taken, it was found that there was no possibility of current leakage in the washing machine. It was also reported that by mistake** H 177 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A 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, the respondents B immediately rushed to the hospital to save the life of the deceased and she was declared dead by the Doctor. The High Court was right in holding that no offence under Section 304A IPC was made out. [Para 6] [180-E-H; 181C A] 2. Although no rash or negligent act on the part of the respondents was noticed, the fact remained that the deceased was doing the household work for the respondents 1 and 2 and working as per the instructions 0 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 who engaged her for the said work were liable to compensate the E deceased. The object of providing compensation in this case is to help the family of the deceased. The deceased belonged to a lower strata of the society, in the interest of justice, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the respondents F are dir~cted also to pay compensation to the appellant. As decided by the State Government, the third respondent-State of Kerala shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund to the appellant. Additi.1nally, the respondents No. 1 & 2 G shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant. [Paras 7, 8] [181-B-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 582 of2015 H RAJAN v. JOSEPH & ORS. 179 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2013 of the A High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. MC No. 1325 of 2007 Sidhartha Dave, Sajith P., fortheAppellant. M. T. George, Kavitha K. T., Santosh Subramanyan, K. J. Joby, T. G. Narayanan Nair, K. N. Madhusoodhananforthe Respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **R. BANUMATHI, J. 1.** 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 _2001,_ allowing the D application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quashing the proceeding initiated againstthe respondents in C.C. No.994 of 2006 u/s 304A IPC, pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur, Thrissur District, Kerala. E 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:- The appellant herein is the husband of the deceased-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 F 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 G 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 H 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A 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. B 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 c is undisputed that deceased was working as a maid for the last five years in the house of resp'ondents. On 15.4.2005, the deceased died due to electric shock in the washing machine while working in the house of the respondents No. 1 & 2. To prove the charge under Section 304A IPC, it is D 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. E 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 F 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 G 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 H Doctor-CW3. Considering the materials on record, we concur RAJAN v. JOSEPH & ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 181 with the views expressed by the High Court that no offence A under Section 304A IPC is made out and in our view, the High Court has rightly quashed the proceedings initiated before JMFC. 7. Although no rash or negligent act is noticed on the B part of the respondents, the fact remains that the deceasedAmmini 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 C 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. D 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 E 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 F appellant. B 8. As decided by the State Government, the third respondent-State of Kerala shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund to G 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. Devika Gujral > Appeal disposed of. H