CASE ANALYSIS

NARESH GIRI V. STATE OF MP.

By:

((2008) 1 SCC 791)

Arvind

Waghela

(http:GuysApp.com)

UNDERSTANDING THE CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE & RASHNESS IN

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN
NARSH GIRI V. STATE OF MP

In Naresh Giri v State of MP, The Supreme Court altered the decision of the High
Court and convicted accused in Section 304 A IPC. The case is related with
Negligence and Rashness, While this appears a good decision by Apex Court, It deals
with a basic question of mental state in deciding the punishable law under
negligence. The author examines the courts decision and the principles laid down by
the honourable court. For the first time court approached the question using the
mental state between the section 302 & 304A of IPC.

GuysApp Inc. Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................3
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW USED IN NARESH GIRI...................................................3
JUDICIAL APPROACHES PRIOR NARESH GIRI CASE............................................................6
THE NARESH GIRI JUDGEMENT.............................................................................................8
CONCLUSION

AND

ANALYSIS..................................................................................................9

GuysApp Inc. Page 2

Introduction
The Supreme Court on 12th November 2007 delivered its judgement in the case of Naresh
Giri vs State of Madhya Pradesh1. The main issues dealing which the Apex Court dealt were:
1. Whether the Appellate/Accused is liable under Section 302 of the IPC, as framed by
High Court in the judgement?
2. Whether Appellate can convict under Section 304-A, IPC? As pleaded by him.
3. How court distinguish mental state required under section 302 IPC from the one
required under section 304A IPC.
This Case Analysis has been divided into three parts. Part I deals with relevant laws
applicable and prior judgments related to the case. Part II deals with the Judgment of the case
and Part III deals with the Conclusion and Analysis of the case.

Relevant Provisions of Law Used In Naresh Giri

Section 28 of Indian Penal Code:
The main ingredients of Counterfeiting as laid down in sec 28, IPC are:2-i. Causing one thing to resemble another thing,
ii. Intending by means of such resemblance to practice deception, or
iii. Knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby practised.
Section 299:

1 (2008) 1 SCC 791

2 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 30th Ed, pg. 28
GuysApp Inc. Page 3

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that
he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.3
Section 300:
Subject to certain exception culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is done 4
i. With the intention of causing death; or
ii. with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or
iii. with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to
be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
iv. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in
all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.

Section 302:
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine.5

3 The Indian Penal Code, 1860

4 Ratanlal & DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code, 30th Ed, pg. 436.

5 The Indian Penal Code, 1860

GuysApp Inc. Page 4

Section 304:
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with
the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.6
Section 304-A:
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.7
Section 323:
Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.8
Section 325:
6 Ibid 5.

7 The Indian Penal Code, 1860

8 Ibid 7.
GuysApp Inc. Page 5

Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.Whoever, except in the case provided for
by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.9
Section 337:
Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger
human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both.10
Section 279:
To punish under the section, its require two thingsi.
ii.

Driving of a vehicle or riding on a public way.

Such driving or riding must be so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to
be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.11

Judicial Approaches Prior Naresh Giri case.

In the case of Syed Akbar v. State of Kamataka12, The fore-quoted statement of law in
Andrews has been noted with approval. The Supreme Court has dealt with and pointed out
9 Ibid 7.

10 Ibid 7.

11 Ratanlal & Dhirjlal, The Indian Penal Code, 30th Ed, pg. 386

12 1979 AIR 1848

GuysApp Inc. Page 6

with reasons the distinction between negligence in civil law and in criminal law. The Apex
court held that where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to
be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely
based upon an error of judgment.

In Rathnashalvan v state of Karantaka 13, The Supreme Court had another occasion to deal
with the ingredients of culpable negligence. In this case the accused drove a lorry in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against a tree resulting in loss of three lives and serous
injuries to other travelling in the lorry. Explaining the meaning of culpable negligence the
court said thus.
Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the
extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case.
Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences
will follow but the hope it will notCriminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous
or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further
knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or
knowledge that t would probably be caused.
In State of Rajasthan v. Chittarmal14 the facts were that the accused placed a naked electric
wire near the fencing of his property to prevent wild animals entering into his property. The
deceased who came in contact with it was electrocuted. The accused was charged under
section 302, IPC. The high court altered his conviction under section 302 to section 304 A
13 (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 84.

14 (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 696

GuysApp Inc. Page 7

IPC. This was upheld by the supreme court observing that section 304A applies to cases
where there is an intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all
probabilities will cause death.

The Naresh Giri Judgement

In this said case, On 29.8.2004 a bus bearing no. MPO 10588 was going from Ahrauli
towards Kailaras. While it was near a Railway crossing, an accident took place. A train hit
the bus at the railway crossing. In the accident, the bus which was being driven by the
appellant was badly damaged and as a result of the accident, several passengers got injured
and two persons died.
After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet was filed. The charges were framed in
relation to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and alternatively, under Sections
304, 325 and 323 of the Penal Code. Questioning the correctness of the charges framed, the
revision petition was filed.
The case of the appellant was that Section 302 IPC had no application to the facts of the case.
The High Court rejected the plea of the appellant. The High Court was of the view that on the
basis of the material available, the charges were rightly framed and the intention of the
appellant could be gathered at the time when the evidence would be adduced. It was his case
that at the best Section 304A IPC would be attracted.
The Apex court after hearing the contentions of both the parties and came to a conclusion that
accused had no intention to cause death, so that court uphold the contention of the appellate.
The case at hand is one where prima facie Section 302 IPC has no application. Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed. The charges stand altered to Section 304-A IPC along with Sections
279 and 337 IPC.

GuysApp Inc. Page 8

Conclusion and Analysis

The case of Naresh Giri is a best example of how court can or should address the issue
relating the Negligence and Rashness. The court relied on the intention to cause death,
whereas The High Court was of the view that on the basis of the material available, the
charges were rightly framed and the intention of the appellant could be gathered at the time
when the evidence would be adduced. The provision of section 304-A is not limited to rash or
negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes
punishable.
Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an
accused are rashness/negligence, a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which
may have nothing to do with driving at all.
The judgement was small but enough to establish the issues related Negligence and rashness.
The Apex court reiterated the principle lay down in Syad Akbar15 and held that simple lack of
care as such will constitute civil liability, is not enough; for liability under the criminal law a
very high degree of negligence is required to be proved.
The relevance of Naresh Giri case is that any rash or negligent act whereby death of any
person is caused becomes punishable. Even The death so caused is not the determining factor.

15 Supra12.
GuysApp Inc. Page 9