Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application filed by the applicant-trainer and quashed the criminal case against him. The Court held that the material on record did not show any criminal intent, motive, malafides, or blameworthy conduct on the part of the trainer or the fellow students who were present at the time of the incident.
The Court observed that the case was “plainly a case of an accidental death” and that the allegations made against the trainer were “wholly unfounded.” The Court further described the incident as “a tragic accidental death, and nothing more.”
Facts
The matter arose from the unfortunate death of a young Kho-Kho player who had participated in a sports competition. After the competition, the trainer had taken the students to R-Mall. While returning from the mall, the students were attempting to cross the road.
According to the father of the deceased student, the trainer was careless while taking the students across the road, and due to such alleged carelessness, the student was hit by an unknown vehicle. The father therefore alleged that the trainer was responsible for the death and sought further investigation into the incident.
The father also contended that he had made representations to the authorities and had sought details of the investigation, but according to him, the police did not take satisfactory action. He also filed applications seeking information and pursued further steps for investigation.
Applicant-Trainer’s Case
The applicant-trainer denied any criminal role in the incident and submitted that the entire incident was purely accidental. It was argued that the students had gone for dinner after the tournament and, while returning, were crossing the road together.
The applicant’s case was that the deceased student unfortunately stepped down from the divider and was struck by a speeding vehicle. It was further submitted that the applicant himself had a sports background and had worked as a team manager for the district Kho-Kho team.
It was also pointed out that an “A” Summary Report had already been filed and accepted by the Magistrate earlier, which supported the position that the case was treated as one where the offending vehicle could not be traced and no criminal role could be attributed to the trainer.
State’s Stand
The State also supported the view that the matter was a simple road accident. The prosecution submitted that the vehicle which caused the accident could not be traced and that the statements of the students and other witnesses supported the accidental nature of the incident.
The statements of the fellow students indicated that the group was crossing the road, and the deceased was unfortunately hit after stepping down from the divider. Other witnesses also gave similar statements regarding the incident.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court carefully considered the material placed on record and found no reason to treat the incident as anything more than a road accident. The Court specifically noted that there was no motive, no intent, and no malafides attributable either to the trainer or to the students who had accompanied the deceased to the mall.
The Court found that the witness statements showed that the students were holding hands while attempting to cross the road from the divider. Unfortunately, the deceased appears to have stepped down on the road and was struck by a speeding vehicle.
On this basis, the Court held that no blame could be attributed either to the trainer or to the fellow students. The Court rejected the allegations made against the trainer and found them unsupported by the material on record.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the incident was a tragic road accident and not a case where criminal liability could be fastened upon the trainer. The criminal case against the trainer was therefore quashed.
The connected petition seeking further investigation was kept for hearing on a later date.
