RAJAN versus JOSEPH & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 08-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015]4S.C.R.177 
RAJAN 
v. 
JOSEPH & ORS. 
Criminal Appeal No. 582 of2015 
APRIL08, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
Penal Code, 1860: s.304A - Accidental death -
Victim-
deceased 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; 181-
C 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 
0 
respondents 1 and 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 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] 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 582 of2015 
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. 
B 
M. T. George, Kavitha K. T., Santosh Subramanyan, K. 
J. Joby, T. G. Narayanan Nair, K. N. Madhusoodhananforthe 
Respondents. 
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 
c 
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 cog
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.