Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2024
Decided on : 07-03-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 250] – Discharge of accused – At the stage of consideration of discharge, court is not required to undertake threadbare analysis of materials gathered by prosecution – All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused – Materials should be sufficient to enable court to initiate criminal trial against accused – It may be so that at end of trial, accused may still be acquitted – By its very nature, discharge is at a higher pedestal than acquittal – Acquittal is at end of trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or prosecution could not prove charge against accused – But when accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify launch of criminal trial against accused – Once he is discharged, he is no longer an accused. (Para 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 105 Part II read with Section 5(3)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 250] – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Rejection of discharge application – To commit offence of culpable homicide, intention or knowledge is of crucial importance – Basic ingredient of Section 304 Part II IPC is presence of knowledge and absence of intention – Doer must have knowledge that act performed by him would likely cause death etc but there should not be any intention to cause death – There was no intention on part of appellants to cause death or cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death of two deceased employees – It cannot also be said that appellants had knowledge that by asking two deceased employees to work on sign board as part of work of decoration of frontage of shop, they had knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death of two deceased employees – As such, no prima facie case of culpable homicide can be said to have been made out against appellants – Basic ingredients for commission of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC are absent in present case – Trial Court and High Court fell in error in rejecting discharge applications of appellants – Appellants discharged from Sessions Case. (Paras 12.3, 12.4, 14, 15 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Though prosecution had submitted chargesheet alleging commission of offence under Sections 304A/182/201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Magistrate while committing case to Court of Sessions concluded that there was material to invoke Section 304 Part II IPC. Trial Court took the view that there is sufficient material justifying framing of charge against appellants for the offence 7 punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. Interestingly, High Court proceeded on the basis that appellants were accused of committing offences under Sections 304 and 304A IPC while dismissing revision application of appellants.
Findings of Court:
Order of Trial Court dated 01.04.2017 and that of High Court dated 02.11.2017 hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently, discharge applications hereby allowed.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Application No. 269 of 2017.
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.11.2017, the revision application filed by the appellants assailing the order dated 01.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014 came to be dismissed.
2.1. Be it stated that by the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2017, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dismissed the discharge applications filed by the appellants being Exhibit Nos. 6 and 10 in Sessions Case No.749 of 2014.
3. Appellants are Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and Nimesh Pravinchandra Shah.
4. Appellant No. 1 was doing interior decoration of the concerned shop in Pune on contract basis. Appellant No. 2 was the Store Operation Manager of M/s. lntergold Gems Private Limited which had taken the concerned shop on lease.
4.1. On 27.09.2013, at about 09:00 PM, the work of decoration of the front side of the shop was being undertaken by two employees of appellant No.1, Salauddin Shaikh and Arun Sharma. It is alleged that both the employees viz. Salauddin Shaikh and Arun Sharma were provided with an iron ladder and they were working on the sign board which was approximately at a height of 12 feet from the ground level. While they were working on the sign board, they were struck by electricity as a result of which they got electrocuted and fell down. Due to the fall, they suffered head injuries as well as injuries on their arms. They were taken to Pune Hospital and Research Centre where they were declared dead on arrival.
4.2. Accidental reports bearing Nos. 67/23 and 68/23 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) were registered.
4.3. After more than two months, on 04.12.2013, FIR was lodged at Vishrambag Police Station, Pune by the Police Sub-Inspector Shri S.G. Patil against the appellants which was registered as FIR No. 316/2013. It was stated that the appellants did not provide any safety equipments like belt, helmet, rubber shoes etc to the two deceased employees. According to the investigating officer, the two accused persons had not taken proper care and caution by providing safety shoes, safety belt etc to the two employees though the work assigned to them was quite risky. Informant opined that both the appellants were responsible for the unnatural death of the two employees since they had knowledge that there was risk to the lives of the employees. Therefore, the first informant summed up by saying that both the accused persons were responsible for the unnatural death of the two deceased persons. Accordingly, it was alleged that appellants had committed offences under Sections 304 and 304A IPC.
4.4. On 04.12.2013 itself both the appellants were arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR. They were subsequently released on the same day. After completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet in which the two appellants were arrayed as accused. Appellants were chargesheeted for committing an offence under Sections 304A/182/201 read with Section 34 IPC.
4.5. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, before whom the chargesheet was filed, was of the view that there were material to attract Section 304 Part II IPC. Since it became a sessions triable case, the same was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune where it was registered as Sessions Case No.749 of 2014.
5. Appellants filed Exhibit Nos. 6 and 10 applications in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune seeking their discharge under Section 227 of CrPC.
5.1. Contention of the appellants in the discharge applications was that there were no materials to show that the appellants had committed the alleged offence. Ingredients of the alleged offence charged were not even prima facie established against the appellants. Charge l
(1) Discharge of accused – By its very nature, discharge is at a higher pedestal than acquittal – Acquittal is at end of trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or prosecution....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and death by negligence, as defined in Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC, respectively.
Point of law : A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence.
The court found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Negligence leading to accidental death can attract liability under Section 304-A IPC when safety protocols are ignored despite known risks, as established by credible evidence.
The judgment emphasizes that the material must prima facie indicate the accused's guilt of culpable homicide, and the knowledge of the accused persons about the sub-standard construction being likely....
Criminal proceedings against public servants for negligence cannot be quashed on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, as negligent acts or omissions do not constitute acts performed....
Criminal liability under IPC for negligence requires direct causation and gross negligence must be established; absence of presence at the incident absolves the petitioner of responsibility.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
