The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a juvenile, referred to as Master M, challenging the framing of notice and charges for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II of the IPC). The Court held that when material on record prima facie discloses ingredients of a higher offence, it is “more prudent” to frame such a charge, leaving the final determination of the mental state of the accused to the stage of trial.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a fatal accident on April 4, 2016, near Shyam Nath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi. A Mercedes Benz, allegedly driven by the petitioner (who was 17 years, 11 months, and 26 days old at the time), struck Siddharth Sharma at high speed while he was crossing the road. The victim succumbed to his injuries the following day.
Investigation revealed that the petitioner had a history of traffic violations, including previous challans for over-speeding. Eyewitnesses and co-occupants of the vehicle stated the car was being driven at speeds between 80-100 kmph in a 50 kmph zone. CCTV footage and FSL reports suggested an absence of skid marks, indicating that brakes were not applied. Initially registered under Section 304A IPC (death by negligence), the police later added Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) based on the “aggravated circumstances” and the petitioner’s alleged “knowledge” of the likely fatal consequences of his actions.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner: Counsel for Master M argued that the essential ingredient of “knowledge” required for Section 304 Part-II was absent. They contended that:
- Mere high speed falls under Section 304A (rash or negligent act), not Section 304 Part-II.
- The road was “fairly empty,” the traffic light was green, and the victim suddenly changed direction, leading to the accident.
- The petitioner was only four days short of majority and possessed the “discretion to drive effectively.”
- Section 134/187 of the MV Act was not made out as the petitioner allegedly assisted in putting the victim in an auto-rickshaw.
For the State and Complainant: The prosecution argued that the “knowledge” of the likelihood of death was discernible from the circumstances:
- The petitioner drove a high-powered vehicle without a license at nearly double the speed limit on a busy public road.
- He ignored warnings from his friends inside the car to slow down.
- He was a “repeat offender” with a history of accidents and traffic violations.
- Fleeing the spot and abandoning the victim demonstrated a mental state beyond mere negligence.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the matter, emphasized the distinction between Section 304 Part-II and Section 304A IPC. The Court noted that while Section 304A covers acts where death is caused without intention or knowledge, Section 304 Part-II is attracted when the act is done with the “knowledge that it is likely to cause death.”
The Court observed:
“Knowledge in this context denotes an awareness of the likelihood of fatal consequences arising from the act committed. Such knowledge is ordinarily inferred from the nature of the act, the surrounding circumstances, and the degree of risk inherent in the conduct.”
Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra and State v. Sanjeev Nanda, the Court remarked that motor vehicle accidents can be prosecuted as culpable homicide if the evidence demonstrates the driver knew their act was so dangerous that it was likely to cause death.
Regarding the stage of framing charges (Section 251 CrPC), the Court highlighted:
- The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is only required to form a “presumptive opinion” of a prima facie case.
- A “mini trial” or detailed evaluation of evidence (like CCTV footage or witness credibility) is not permissible at this stage.
The Court further stated:
“The determination of the existence of mental elements such as ‘intention’ or ‘knowledge’… is essentially fact-specific and can only be conclusively adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties.”
Decision
The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the JJB’s order dated March 18, 2023. Justice Mahajan concluded that since the material prima facie disclosed the ingredients of Section 304 Part-II, it was appropriate to frame the notice for the higher offence.
The Court invoked the principle from Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, stating that framing a higher charge at the outset prevents procedural complications if the trial later justifies the graver offence, whereas the power to reduce the charge to a lesser offence remains preserved.
Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that the JJB should independently assess the evidence during the inquiry, uninfluenced by the observations in this judgment.
Case Details
- Case Title: Master M v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 564/2023 & CRL.M.A. 13482/2023
- Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan
- Date: April 17, 2026
