Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 338 in Jeyasingh vs The State on 18 November, 2025Matching Fragments
7. After the initial investigation, by way of an alteration report, under Section 174 the case of the CrPC was altered into Sections 336, 337, 338 and 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Section 21(d) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
8. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet bearing FR-79/2018 was filed on 20.06.2018 against three persons, adding the appellant as accused no. 1 and 2 others, namely Prabhu (accused No.2) and Peter Van Geit (accused No.3) under Sections 338, 304 (Part II), 326 and 304A of the IPC.
“We have perused in detail the First Information Report dated 12.03.2018 as well as the charge-sheet filed on 20.06.2018. The charges as against the appellant herein are only under Sections 304 A and 338 IPC. Section 304 A deals with causing death by negligence and Section 338 deals with causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others. The said sections read as under:
304A. Causing death by negligence— Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
12. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision petition bearing Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 1286 of 2024 before the High Court. By the impugned order dated 03.06.2025, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. While referring to this Court’s judgment dated 23.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2024 whereby the proceedings in S.C. No. 70 of 2019 against accused No.3 were quashed, the High Court observed that the said decision to quash the case against accused No.3 was specific to the lack of negligence attributed to him under Sections 338 and 304A of the IPC, and as such the said ruling did not imply that the entire case herein should be quashed due to the incident being an instance of vis major. Furthermore, the High Court, while taking note of the fact that accused No.3 had invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, whereas the appellant herein had invoked Section 227 of the CrPC claiming discharge, held that both the said actions were distinct and the nature and scope of enquiry in both the cases were entirely different. The High Court therefore found force in the contention raised on behalf of the prosecution that the Supreme Court’s decision to quash the case against accused No.3 did not automatically entitle the appellant to discharge inasmuch as serious charges under Sections 304 (Part II) and 326 of the IPC were framed against him, thereby distinguishing his case from that of the case of accused No.3. Upon consideration of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of the CrPC, the High Court held that a specific role was alleged against the appellant as well as his watcher Ranjith. Taking note of the statements of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the appellant’s role, the deployment of Ranjith to accompany the trekking group from Erode led by accused No.2 and the fact that the appellant received the trekking fees in his personal account, the High Court held that there was sufficient material available to proceed against the appellant. While holding that the trial court dismissed the discharge petition preferred by the appellant without considering the grounds, the High Court, however, observed that the same by itself could not be a ground to set aside the order of the trial court. According to the High Court when there was sufficient material available to proceed against the appellant in the present case.
13. Being aggrieved, the appellant is here before this Court.
14. During the course of arguments, Sri Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel brought to our notice the order dated 23.01.2024 passed in the case of Peter Van Geit vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2024 who was accused No.3 in S.C. No.70 of 2019. He contended that in the said order, this Court quashed the First Information Report dated 12.03.2018 as well as the chargesheet filed on 20.06.2018 under Sections 304A and 338 of the IPC insofar as the appellant therein was concerned. But, in the instant case, insofar as the appellant herein is concerned who was only discharging his duties as a Forest Ranger in Kottagudi Forest Division and was also holding additional charge of the Mandal Division, the chargesheet has invoked Sections 304 Part II and 338, 326 and 304A of the IPC even though the said provisions do not arise at all, and hence the very invocation of the said provisions is erroneous.