In stampede cases, police must prove ‘gross’ criminal negligence directly endangered human life, according to court verdicts

One of the offences levelled against Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leaders in a case registered by the Karur Town Police following a stampede at a party meeting addressed by actor Vijay that led to the loss of 40 lives is the commission of an “act endangering life and personal safety of others”.

Also read: TVK rally stampede in Tamil Nadu updates

Section 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) covers the offence of causing “grievous hurt” through a rash and negligent act which endangers human life or the personal safety of others. The BNS provision replaces Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

Stampede on platform

Section 338 was invoked against actor Shah Rukh Khan in the Vadodara stampede case of 2017. The actor was accused of acting rashly and negligently by throwing ‘smiley balls’ and ‘T-shirts’ into the crowd gathered at the Vadodara railway station in January 2017. The crowd had jostled to get the trophies lobbed out by the actor from a train during the promotion of his film Raees. A stampede ensued on the platform, resulting in a death and injuries to several persons.

The case against Mr. Khan was quashed by the Gujarat High Court in April 2022. In September the same year, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar (both retired) refused to intervene against the reasoning in the High Court decision, which explained that the degree of rashness and negligence involved must be “extremely high” or “gross” to constitute a criminal offence.

Definition of negligence

“Negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea [intention to commit a crime] must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher, that is, gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution,” the High Court had explained.

The High Court’s observations were based on a Supreme Court judgment in Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab, which had extensively discussed negligence as a crime. Secondly, the judgment in Mr. Khan’s case saw the courts confirm that death should be a direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused. Besides, the alleged act must be the proximate and efficient cause without intervention of another’s negligence.

“The alleged act on part of the accused should be the act which led to the death and there should not be any intervening or contributory negligence of any other person, including of the deceased,” the High Court had noted.

It had justified that the “mere fact of the accused contravening certain rules or regulations” in the doing of the specific act which caused death of another would not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death.