According to the Kerala High Court, when an accused person knows that what they are about to do would likely result in someone’s death and they take action knowing that they will likely cause someone to pass away, they are in violation of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. When making a distinction between crimes punishable under Section 304A and those punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, Justice A Badharudeen noted that Section 304A of the IPC must make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide when intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act. The law is unambiguous that a case will unquestionably come under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. if the accused knew that the conduct he had committed was likely to result in the death of a person, and with that knowledge, he had committed the act, and as a result, the person died. The problem in this instance is that the first accused, who had a deformity on his left wrist and also lacked a legitimate and legal driver’s licence, had driven a bus knowing that it would likely result in an accident and tragic repercussions. A culvert on the right side of the road was struck by the bus, which then plunged into the ditch on the other side, killing 5 passengers and badly injuring 63 others.
The second defendant, who is the first defendant’s brother and the bus’s owner, is also accused of having given the first defendant permission to operate the bus while knowing that doing so would increase the likelihood of an accident and tragic consequences. C might be drawn, and if such a hasty and careless act is justified by a true purpose on the part of the perpetrator to cause death, then an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. may be committed.
The court expressed its opinion when debating the issue of appropriate sentencing, stating that one of the main goals of criminal law is to impose a sentence that is appropriate, adequate, just, and proportionate, commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The facts and circumstances of each case determine the punishment that would best serve the interests of justice, and while imposing a sentence, the court must take into account the seriousness of the crime, the criminal’s purpose, the type of the offence, and all other pertinent factors. As a result, the court declared that it is established law that the punishment in a case should be commensurate with the cruelty and brutality of the crime, the gravity of the offense warranting the public’s disgust, and the need for justice against the offender. Driving of automobiles, especially professional drivers must be constantly reminded of their responsibility to exercise the utmost caution and of the consequences that await them in cases of dereliction because automobiles have become death traps, and any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of reckless driving would be at risk.