Kerala High Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision to Proceed with Charges in Fatal Road Accident Case

Court Denies Discharge Plea, Citing Prima Facie Evidence Against the Accused in Section 304 IPC and Motor Vehicles Act Case

News Report: In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the decision of the trial court to proceed with charges against Rajan V.K., accused in a fatal road accident case. The judgment was delivered by Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J., on September 16, 2025, affirming the trial court's dismissal of the discharge application filed by the petitioner. Rajan V.K. faced charges under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, following an incident on December 7, 2016, where he allegedly drove a bus at high speed, resulting in the death of motorcyclist Mr. Arjun Karun.

The petitioner challenged the trial court's order, arguing that contradictions between the FIR and the final report should warrant a discharge at this stage. The FIR, based on the statement of the deceased's uncle, described the vehicles as coming from opposite directions, whereas the final report stated both were proceeding in the same direction. However, the High Court emphasized that such contradictions are not sufficient grounds for discharge, given the presence of prima facie evidence.

The judgment highlighted the prosecution's assertion that the petitioner had the intention and knowledge that reckless driving could cause death. The High Court concluded that determining intention or knowledge is a matter for trial and should not be prejudged at this stage.

The court denied the revision petition, allowing the trial to proceed, and instructed the trial court to dispose of the case without being influenced by observations made in the current order. The petitioner retains the liberty to raise all contentions during the trial.

This decision underscores the judiciary's stance on ensuring that cases with prima facie evidence proceed to trial, while procedural contradictions are addressed during the trial phase. Legal experts believe this judgment reinforces the importance of thorough trial proceedings in cases involving serious charges under the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act.

Bottom Line:

The dismissal of an application for discharge under Section 304 IPC and Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was upheld, with the court holding that contradictions in the FIR and final report cannot be a ground for discharge at this stage. The presence of prima facie evidence was deemed sufficient for the trial to proceed, and the question of intention or knowledge is to be decided during the trial. 

Statutory provision(s): Section 304 IPC, Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Rajan V.K. v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2781699