Liability of A1 & A2 under 302

1. The foremost and the most essential element to be liable under section 302 is that the
person must have the intention to kill a person or such knowledge that the act in ordinary
course of nature likely to cause death.

2. The driver of the truck was acting legally during his course of employment. He was
acting according to the protocol of the smart city.

3. The truck was cruising on elevated road in the rightward direction and on the left was a
25 ft drop, when truck began to skid due to the spilled sludge on the road.

4. The onboard artificial intelligence system acted to avert the danger steered the truck in
order to keep it in the right lane save it from falling off the ledge.

5. The truck was working according the designed software, as it was acting according to set
of programmed database so as to keep the truck in the correct lane and avert the wreck.

6. Mere case of accident due to sludge on road because of which the road became slippery

7. Contributory negligence by the bus driver. The driver in order to avoid the traffic he
switched to freight road.
8. The court gave a four-point test which prosecution must observe and prove in order tobring
the case under this section:
i) First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;

ii) Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective
investigations.

iii) Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,
 that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was
intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further
and,

iv) Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part
of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of
the offender.

Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is
on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 3001

Liabilility under 304

Section 299 IPC defines culpable homicide as the act of causing death with one of three
intentions:

a. Of causing death
b. Of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
c. Of doing something which the accused knows to be likely to cause death

Thus to attract the liability under the section all three intention must be directed either
deliberately to putting an end to a human life or to some act which to the knowledge of the
accused is likely to eventuate in putting an end to human life.2

Commission of the offence of culpable homicide would require some positive act on the part
of the accused as distinguished from silence, inaction or a mere lapse, which are the principle
allegations made in the FIR, cannot make out a case of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder punishable under Section 304 IPC. To attract the ingredients of the said offence
something more positive than a mere omission, lapse or negligence on the part of the named

1
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465.
2
Palani Goundan v. Emperor [1919 Mad]
 accused will have to be present. Such statements are conspicuously absent in the FIR filed in
the present case.3

The ceo of the city has not even foreseen and there was not a mere possibility that the sliudge
can cause death of 25 students.

Defence under section 80 ipc

The word ‘accident’ is something that happens unexpectedly or happens unintentionally4.

The purely accidental result of a man’s voluntary conduct will not be imputed to him if5 –

i. He had no criminal intention or knowledge

ii. His conduct was lawful
iii. His consequences were purely lawful

In the alleged FIR

The Supreme Court has held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence.6

There is no vicarouis liab in the case of principal employer in relation to other labour who has no
ultimate control over the affairs on any establishment

3
Shantibhai J. Vaghela & anr. v. State of Gujarat & ors., (2012) 13 S.C.C. 231(India).
4
I, Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, p. 837 (10th Ed. 2008)
5
Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 Punj 291
6
Nathulal v. State, 1966 S.C. 43 (India).