Alister Anthony Pareira v State of Maharashtra
(2012) 2 SCC 648; 2012 INSC 1820121 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The appellant drove his car at high speed under the influence of liquor onto a Mumbai pavement where labourers were asleep, killing seven and injuring eight. The trial court convicted under S.304A and S.337 IPC; the High Court convicted under S.304 Part II, S.338 and S.337 IPC.
- Issue
- Whether a single rash or negligent act can support charges under S.304 Part II and S.338 IPC together, and whether S.304 Part II was made out.
- Held
- Charges under S.304 Part II and S.338 IPC can co-exist for a single act done with knowledge of its likely dangerous consequences. The appellant could be attributed with knowledge that people asleep on the pavement would very likely be hit. The S.304 Part II conviction was upheld.
- Principle
- Rash or negligent driving with knowledge that death is likely can be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, not merely S.304A negligence.
Facts
- The appellant drove his car at high speed under the influence of liquor onto a Mumbai pavement where labourers were asleep, killing seven and injuring eight. The trial court convicted under S.304A and S.337 IPC; the High Court convicted under S.304 Part II, S.338 and S.337 IPC.
Issue
- Whether a single rash or negligent act can support charges under S.304 Part II and S.338 IPC together, and whether S.304 Part II was made out.
Held
- Charges under S.304 Part II and S.338 IPC can co-exist for a single act done with knowledge of its likely dangerous consequences. The appellant could be attributed with knowledge that people asleep on the pavement would very likely be hit. The S.304 Part II conviction was upheld.
Cite this
Citation
Alister Anthony Pareira v State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648; 2012 INSC 18Reported: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/38962.pdf ; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79026890/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.