Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Kishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
1 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 30th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11966 of 2025
KAMAL KISHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Kunjan Mittal - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Usha Chouhan - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 01.04.2026
Pronounced on : 30.04.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C., 1973/section 415 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is preferred being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.11.2025 passed in
S.T.No.06/2020 by the Additional Judge to the Court of First
Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989 Shajapur (M.P.) whereby this case arising out of Crime
No.221/2019 registered at Police Station Sunera, District Shajapur the
appellant has been convicted under Section 304 of the IPC and has
been sentenced to undergo 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with
default stipulation of 2 months Additional R.I.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
2 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The appellant/accused was the driver of the Omni Van vehicle
bearing Registration No. MP-09-BD-7396, which was being used for
transporting the students of “A” Academy School, Richhoda. On
18.10.2019, after completion of the students‟ examination at about
12:00 PM, the appellant loaded 22 students from the school into the
van and overturned the vehicle into a well situated in front of the
school, due to which three students, namely Hardik, Ayush S/o
Jitendra, and Divya D/o Jitendra, died due to drowning, and the
remaining 19 students sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was registered.
The final report was submitted under Section 304 read with Section
34 of the IPC and Section 146 read with Section 196 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against five persons, including the
appellant/accused Kamal Kishore S/o Mangilal, Ajit Singh S/o Ram
Singh, Jaswant Singh S/o Karan Singh Rajput, Sonabai W/o Karan
Singh, and Maan Singh S/o Karan Singh.
3. Charges under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC
were framed against all five persons. They abjured the guilt and
claimed trial.
4. To bring home the guilt prosecution examined as many as
fifteen witnesses, namely: Mohammad Hafiz S/o Mubarik (PW-1);
Babli Kesariya, a teacher of the school (PW-2); Puja Saurashtra,
another teacher of “A” Academy School (PW-3); Udai Singh (PW-4);
Rajaram (PW-5); Ajay Kumar Malviya (PW-6); Shubham Devda, a
student of “A”Academy School who was present in the van at the
time of the incident (PW-7); Sandeep, father of the deceased Hardik
(PW-8); Nikita, a student of “A”Academy School who was also
present in the van at the time of the incident (PW-9); Lokesh, a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
3 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
student of “A” Academy School who was present in the van at the
time of the incident (PW-10); Deepika, a student of A Academy
School (PW-11); A.S.I. R.C. Yadav (PW-12); Medical Officer Dr.
D.K. Ghanghoria (PW-13); A.S.I. Mohar Singh (PW-14); and A.S.
Badole (PW-15)
5. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 all the
facts and circumstances appeared against the present appellant were
either denied or ignorance was expressed pleading innocence and he
took the defence that he did not commit any incident. He is not the
owner of any vehicle nor he drives any vehicle, he is not aware about
the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-09-BD-7396, his
defense is of false implication.
6. Out of the five accused persons, two died during the trial, two
were acquitted and appellant accused was convicted under Section
304 of the IPC recording the finding that the appellant/accused was
the driver of Omni Van bearing Registration No. MP-09-BD-7396
and he loaded 22 students in the vehicle. When he take a reverse of
the vehicle and at that time he had put the earphone in his ears and
caused the Omni Van vehicle drown into the well due to which three
students died and rest of the 19 students were rescued safely from the
well and thereafter, sentenced the appellant accused as mentioned in
para 1 of the judgment.
SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT
7. Challenging the conviction as well as the sentence, this appeal
has been preferred on the ground that appellant is innocent and has
not committed any offence, and even by going through the evidence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
4 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
of the witnesses and other documentary evidences, no offence under
section 304 of I.P.C. 1860 is made out against the present appellant.
The trial court ignored the fact that the appellant himself was involved
in rescuing the children, therefore, it cannot be said that he
intentionally or knowingly in negligent manner caused the alleged
incident.
8. It is further submitted that the trial court ignored the testimony
of Rajaram (PW- 5) who explicitly deposed the fact that the vehicle
slipped due to the rainy season and the mud which clearly shows the
fact that alleged incident was an accident for which the liability
couldn‟t be fastened upon the present appellant. The trial court has
drawn wrong inferences on the basis of the chief examination of the
witnesses without appreciating the cross examination whereby the fact
about the innocence of the present appellant is apparent in clear terms.
JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT
9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ganesh Bhavan
Patel vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1978) 4 SCC 371,
Jayant Tiwari vs. The State of M.P. reported in 2024 Supreme
(OnLine) (M.P.) 2690, Kamlesh Singh vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh in CRR No.5252 of 2023 order dated 04.03.2024 by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, Vishal &Anr. Vs. State of M.P.
reported in I.L.R. 2018 M.P. *70, Nitinchandra Somnath Raval vs.
State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 14 SCC 676, Rathnashalvan vs.
State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 3 SCC 474 and Satpal vs. State
of Haryana reported in (2004) 10 SCC 794.
Heard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
5 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT/STATE
10. Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the
criminal appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same by supporting
the impugned order.
Perused the record.
APPRECIATION AND CONCLUSION
11. Before appreciating the evidence for examining the correctness
of findings recorded by the trial court in the light of contention raised
by the appellant, this Court is referring some vital facts important for
the decision.
12. The documents admitted on behalf of the appellant under
Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. are available with the record as [Ex.P-39 to
57]. These 19 documents are the certificates of medico legal
examination of the children that were safely rescued from the well and
were examined on 19.10.2019 in the District Hospital, Shajapur. The
details are being reproduced as below:-
Sr. No. Document. Description Age Remark
1. Ex.P-39 Mansih s/o 08 years -
Bhagwansingh
2. Ex.P-40 Harshad s/o Afsar 08 years -
3. Ex.P-41 Krishnapal s/o Jitendra 08 years -
4. Ex.P-42 Rajsingh s/o Elkar 07 years -
5. Ex.P-43 Sneha d/o Suresh 07 years -
6. Ex.P-44 Bhanu s/o Ramchandra 06 years -
7. Ex.P-45 Anas s/o Afsar 06 years -
8. Ex.P-46 Bhawna d/o Mangilal 51/2 years -
9. Ex.P-47 Aryan s/o Suresh 05 years -
10. Ex.P-48 Neha d/o Jitendra 06 years -
11. Ex.P-49 Prince s/o Bharat 05 years -
12. Ex.P-50 Aayush s/o Santosh 04 years -
13. Ex.P-51 Aayush s/o Arjun 04 years -
14. Ex.P-52 Sandhya d/o 04 years -
Chhaganlal
15. Ex.P-53 Lokesh s/o Ramlal 11 years Examined as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
6 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
(PW-10)
16. Ex.P-54 Deepika d/o Jitendra 11 years Examined as
(PW-11)
17. Ex.P-55 Shubham Devda s/o 12 years Examined as
Manohar (PW-07)
18. Ex.P-56 Kushaal s/o 10 years –
Bhagwansingh
19. Ex.P-57 Nikita d/o Jitendra 09 years Examined as
(PW-09)
13. Apart from the above nineteen children, three others died. The
autopsy reports conducted on 18.10.2019 (Ex. P-29, P-30, and P-31)
were admitted under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., and their details are
set out below.:-
Sr. No. Document Name Age
1. Ex.P-29 Hardik s/o Sandeep 05 years
2. Ex.P-30 Divya d/o Jitendra 05 years
3. Ex.P-31 Aayush s/o Jitendra 07 years
14. On the basis of the testimonies of Mohd. Hafiz (PW-1),
Shubham (PW-7), Lokesh (PW-10), and Deepika (PW-11), the
explanation advanced in the examination under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 that he was not concerned with the vehicle bearing
Registration No. MP-09-BD-7396 or that he was not its driver does
not succeed and is a false explanation.
15. Now, coming to the seating capacity of the Maruti Omni van
bearing Registration No. MP-09-BD-7396, the registration details
from the Indore R.T.O. reveal that the vehicle was a saloon-type,
three-cylinder vehicle with an engine capacity of 796 cc. It was a
private Omni van manufactured by Maruti Suzuki in 2017, with a
seating capacity of 7+1.
16. The incident occurred when the appellant loaded 22 children
into an Omni van having a capacity of 7 passengers. He reversed the
vehicle toward a direction where a well was situated. Witnesses stated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
7 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
that, at the time, he was using earphones. This act resulted in the
vehicle falling into the well, which was filled with water, causing the
deaths of three children and injuries to nineteen others.
17. The argument advanced on the basis of the testimony of
Rajaram (PW-5) that the incident was a pure accident does not
succeed, as this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.
Nothing in the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of Shubham
(PW-7) supports this contention. Even otherwise, the appellant was
duty-bound to exercise extra care, and ought not to have loaded 22
students into a vehicle with a seating capacity of only 7 persons, nor
to have driven the vehicle while using earphones; he was required to
drive the vehicle safely.
18. The mechanical report (Ex.D-4) relied upon by the appellant is
being reproduced as below:-
„‟उऩयोक्त विषमाक ॊ त एिॊ सन्दर्शित ऩत्र े सन्दबि भें रेख है क थाना ऩरयसय सुभेया
भें जप्त शुदा भारुर्त िेन (OMNI) क्रभाॊ MP09-BD-7396 ी भै े र्न र जाॊच भेये
द्वाया ी गई जजसभें र्नम्न) खयाफीमाॉ ऩामी गई-
1. इॊ जन चे क मा इॊ जन भें ऩानी बया होने े ायण इॊ जन स्टाटि नह ॊ
क मा जा स ा।
2. ब्रे ऩैडर फ्री ऩामा ि ब्रे आईर नह ॊ ऩामा।
3. क्रच सह ामि यता ऩामा।
4. हें ड ब्रे ामि यता नह ॊ ऩामा।
5. र्गमय र्रिय सह ामि यता ऩामा गमा।
6. स्टे मरयॊ ग भें अत्मर्ध प्रे ऩामी गई।
7. टामयों ी दशा साभान्म ऩामी गई।
8. साभने ा फम्पय टू टा ऩामा ि साभने ा च
ॊ पूटा ऩामा।
9. ॊ डक्टय साईड ी पाट ा च
ॊ पूटा ऩामा ि च
ॊ ा फ्रेभ गाड े
अन्दय यखा ऩामा।
10. ऩीछे ा पाट वऩच ा ऩामा ि च
ॊ पूटा ऩामा।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
8 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
11. ऩीछे ा फम्पय गाडि टू टा ऩामा।
12. ड्रामिय साईड ऩीछे ा ानिय ि छत वऩच ी ऩामी।
13. िाहन भें गैस ी टॊ ी रगी ऩाई गई जजससे प्रतीत होता है क िाहन
गैस द्वाया चरामा जाता है ।
नोट:- िाहन े इॊ जन भें ऩानी होने े ायण इॊ जन स्टाटि नह ॊ क मा
जा स ा जजस े ायण िाहन चरा य चे नह ॊ क मा जा स ा।
अतः रयऩोटि आऩ ी ओय सादय प्रेवषत है ।
19. The absence of brake oil, the non-functioning of the handbrake,
steering play and the operation of the vehicle on CNG are factors that
run contrary to the argument that this was a case of a pure accident.
Therefore, the contention that the incident dated 18.10.2019 was
accidental does not succeed.
20. Now come to the argument that the act of the appellant accused
falls within the purview of Section 304-A of the IPC and not within
the purview of Section 304 of the IPC.
21. For this purpose, firstly Court is referring to the provisions of
section 304 of the IPC that provide for punishment for culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, which reads as follows:-
”304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder:-
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death,
or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, Or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause death ,but without any intention to cause death,
or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
22. Section 304 of IPC has two parts. To attract the offence
under the first part of Section 304 of IPC, the prosecution has to
prove the death of a person, such death was caused by the act of
the accused and the accused had an intention to cause death or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
9 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
cause such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death of a person.
To bring home the offence under Part II of Section 304 IPC, the
prosecution has to prove the death of a person in question and
death was caused by the act of the accused and the accused has
knowledge that his act is likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death.
23. Interpreting Section 304 of IPC, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Naresh Giri vs. State of M.P. reported in 2008(1) SCC 791, has
held as follows:-
If a person willfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd
and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere
rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable
homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge
that doing an act was likely to cause a person’s death is culpable
homicide. When intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of
the act, Section 304-A has to make room for the graver and more
serious charge of culpable homicide.
24. In another Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lister
Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012(8) SCC
684, has held as follows:-
”41. Rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of
the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in
death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of
a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result
occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. As a
matter of law – in view of the provisions of the IPC the cases which fall
within last clause of Section 299 but not within clause `fourthly’ of
Section 300 may cover the cases of rash or negligent act done with the
knowledge of the likelihood of its dangerous consequences and may
entail punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC. Section 304A IPC
takes out of its ambit the cases of death of any person by doing any rash
or negligent act amounting to culpable homicide of either description.
42. A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes
death which he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was
dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the death was likely to
be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and maySignature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
10 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder and
punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.”
25. Applying the above principles of law in the fact of this case, we
find that in this case the appellant accused has loaded 22 school
students in a vehicle having a capacity of only 7 passengers, vehicle
was not mechanically fit, he parked the vehicle in the vicinity of a
well and the same was filled with the water without any fencing or
covering and appellant was driving the vehicle using earphone and the
vehicle fell into the well. These facts taken cumulatively are not the
mere act of rashness or negligence of appellant but constituting the
knowledge of the appellant/accused that is likely to cause death of the
children constituting culpable homicide.
26. In paragraph 18 of Ganesh Bhavan Patel (supra), relied upon
by the appellant, the Court dealt with the effect of delay as a factor
undermining the prosecution case. In the present case, four
eyewitnesses to the incident were medically examined on 19.10.2019,
and prior thereto, the postmortem of three children was conducted on
18.10.2019. Therefore, the alleged delay does not undermine the
veracity of the prosecution case.
27. Similarly, in Jayant Tiwari (supra), the facts, as mentioned in
paragraph 2, are entirely different, and the ratio of that case is also
distinguishable from the present case.
28. Likewise, the facts of Kamlesh (supra) are entirely different, and
the ratio of the said case does not apply to the facts of the present
case. In Vishal (supra), the case pertained to the drowning of a child
aged about seven years in a swimming pool, where the revision
petitioner was the instructor of the said swimming pool. Hence, the
facts of that case are altogether different from the present case, and
the principle laid down therein is not applicable to the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 12382
11 CRA. No. 11966 of 2025
29. In Nitinchandra (supra), the matter pertained to the liability of a
builder in relation to the collapse of a building during an earthquake.
The facts of that case are also entirely different. Similarly, the facts of
Rathnashalvan (supra) are also distinguishable and do not apply to
the present case.
30. The argument that the IDs of the students were not seized and it
is not established that all the students were of “A” Academy have no
substance. After the incident the factum that the appellant accused
also tried to save the life of the children is not a defence to justify his
act constituting criminal liability falling within the purview of Section
304-II of the IPC.
31. Accordingly, Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting
the appellant/accused under Section 304-II of the IPC, hence, his
conviction under Section 304-II of the IPC is affirmed. The sentence
of the appellant/accused is proportionate and does not require
interference.
32. With the aforesaid, present criminal appeal stands dismissed.
33. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the appellant/accused
through concerned Jail Superintendent. Record be remitted back to the
concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
17:37:57
