Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri Vishwas V. - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5609 of 2022 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 01-06-2022
304A - Architect's Liability - Section 304A of the IPC - Summary: The petitioner, an architect, was charged under Section 304A of the IPC for the death of a worker at a construction site. The court held that the petitioner, who had designed the building, was not responsible for the worker's death as it was not a result of any rash or negligent act on the petitioner's part. The court referred to case law to establish that the cause of death should be a direct consequence of the accused's act, which should be either rash or negligent and proximate to the cause of such death. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an architect, was charged under Section 304A of the IPC for the death of a worker at a construction site. The petitioner argued that he was not responsible for the worker's death as it was not a result of any rash or negligent act on his part.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as an architect who had designed the building, was not responsible for the worker's death as it was not a result of any rash or negligent act on his part. The court referred to case law to establish the principles of liability under Section 304A of the IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as an architect, could be held liable under Section 304A of the IPC for the death of a worker at a construction site.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cause of death should be a direct consequence of the accused's act, which should be either rash or negligent and proximate to the cause of such death. The court referred to case law to establish the principles of liability under Section 304A of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.28916 of 2021 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.249 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Section 304A r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri P.N.Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Nishad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-
The petitioner is an Architect Engineer by profession and is the co-founder of Crest Architects, Bangalore. One Chandrashekar, owner of a residential site situated at 20th Main, 4th Block bearing No.403 of Nandini Layout approaches the petitioner to design his house. Upon inspecting the property personally, the petitioner took the dimensions of the property and owner's requirements for drawing up a design. The owner of the site agreed to the terms of the petitioner and entered into an agreement to design his house on 25-09-2019. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner fulfilled the requirement of the owner as per law. The construction of the building and the plan of action for such construction was entrusted to a contractor by the site owner. The petitioner had only drawn up the design and had also visited the site on several occasions to see whether the construction was coming up according to the design. The visits, according to the petitioner were once in a month.
4. On 10-10-2020 an employee by name Mukesh who was working under the contractor died due to electrocution while undertaking construction in the site. It is averred by the petitioner in the petition that he came to know about the incident so happened on 10-10-2020 only when he attended house warming ceremony of the house on an invitation by the owner in the month of February 2021. On 17-02-2022 the petitioner comes to know of a crime registered against him by the Police in Crime No.249 of 2020. The petitioner was accused No.2 and the owner of the building Mr. Chandrashekar was accused No.3. The allegation in the crime was concerning the incident that happened on 10-10-2020 i.e., the death of the employee Mr. Mukesh due to electrocution. After registration of the crime, the Police conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet only against the petitioner dropping the owner who was accused No.3 for offences punishable under Section 304A r/w 34 of the IPC. It is at that juncture the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question the entire proceedings in C.C.No.28916 of 2021.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that the allegation for offence punishable under Section 304A IPC cannot be laid against the petitioner, as the petitioner was only an Architect who designed the house and it was for the contractor or the owner of the property to have taken such caution to prevent such mishap viz., death of the employee. The owner of the property is let off while filing the charge sheet against the petitioner who is the Architect and has nothing to do with the mishap. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant who is the relative of the employee would seek to justify the action of the police in filing the charge sheet against the petitioner, as according to him the design provided by the petitioner was the cause for the death of the worker and would submit that since charge sheet is filed, it is for the petitioner to come out clean.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the 2nd respondent.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
9. The afore-mentioned facts are not in dispute. On 10.10.2020 an unfortunat
AI
The cause of death should be a direct consequence of the accused's act, which should be either rash or negligent and proximate to the cause of such death, to establish liability under Section 304A of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient grounds and prima facie evidence for framing charges against the accused at the stage of section 227 proceedings.
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 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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of a building cannot be held vicariously liable for accidents if the responsibility for supervision and safety measures was delegate....
A Site Engineer lacking involvement in demolition activities and presence at the scene cannot be held criminally liable under Section 304 IPC without proof of the requisite knowledge or intention to ....
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
