IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, J.
Liu Gaoxuan S/o Liu Baoting – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
C.R.R. Nos. 448, 450, 451, 664, 665 of 2013
Decided On : 15-09-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 397, 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304, 34, 299 – Quash Criminal Case - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - CRMP are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing Criminal Case against petitioners - Held, Court has framed charges against petitioners/revisionists, which is just and proper, therefore, impugned order does not call for any interference by Court, hence quashing of same is hereby rejected - Specific allegation has been made by prosecution against petitioners/revisionists and even supporting evidence are also available on record, Court is of opinion that prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against petitioners/revisionists - Prosecution has to be permitted to lead evidence against petitioners/revisionists as 40 persons have lost their lives and several others were injured in said incident - Case laws cited by learned counsel for petitioners/revisionists are distinguishable from facts and circumstances of present case, hence is no help to them – Court do not find any good ground for interference by this Court for quashing of impugned order as well as proceeding arising thereof against petitioners/revisionists – Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Since these three criminal revisions and two CRMP petitions are arise out of same Crime Number i.e. Crime No. 377/2009, registered at Police Station, Balco, District-Korba (C.G.) and same Sessions Trial No. 16/2010, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists in CRR No. 450/2013, CRR No. 451/2013 and CRR No. 448/2013. Also heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sanya Shukla, Ms. Devangna Singh and Mr. Shireesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 664/2013 and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 665/2013 and Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.
3. CRR No. 450/2013, CRR No. 451/2013 and CRR No. 448/2013 are filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. by the revisionists for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2013 and framing of charges against the revisionists by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) whereas CRMP No. 664/2013 and CRMP No. 665/2013 are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the Criminal Case S.T. No. 16/2010 against the petitioners and for quashing/setting aside of the orders dated 15.04.2013 and 19.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.)
4. The revisionists in CRR No. 450/2013, CRR No. 451/2013 and CRR No. 448/2013 are nationals of Peoples Republic of China and employees of SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as SEPCO), which is a Company incorporated in Peoples Republic of China and has acquired international repute for its expertise in the field of setting up power plants for last more than 50 years.
5. The petitioner in CRMP No. 664 of 2013, namely, Deepak Nagarng is a qualified Mechanical Engineer and has been appointed as Assistant General Manager (Planning) with Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as BALCO) on 04.08.2008 and the petitioner in CRMP No. 665 of 2013, namely, Anup Mahapatre, were posted as Site Engineer In-charge and Site Engineer respectively to look after work of Site Contractor and Sub Contractor and to supervise them mainly for smooth co-ordination of work.
6. M/s BALCO entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) dated 07.10.2006 with the Government of Chhattisgarh for establishing 1200 MW Thermal Power Plant. Pursuant to MOU, BALCO being desirous of procuring, setting up and bringing into commercial operation of a 4 x 300 MW coal power plant at BALCO, Korba, Chhattisgarh entered an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract with the SEPCO on 20.08.2007. The scope of the work under the contract was to provide certain technical services including design, engineering and supervision of erection, testing and commissioning, demonstration of performance, guarantee and comprehensive project management services in a fully coordinated manner. Amongst other the said project included construction of two chimney of the height of 275 meters each.
7. Consequent to the EPC contract, on 08.08.2008, SEPCO entered into a turnkey contract for construction of the 2 chimney with Gannon Dunkerley and Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GDCL). In pursuance to the contract given by the SEPCO, the chimney was being constructed by GDCL as per the specifications mentioned therein. The chimney was to be constructed up to the height of 275 meters to meet with the environmental norms and it was well constructed up to the height of 248 meters. On 23rd September 2009 at around 3.30 pm, there were strong winds accompanied by heavy rain and lightening which affected the chimney during which it collapsed resulting into loss of 40 human lives and injuries to several employees working at that tim
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
Balchandra @ Bapu and Another vs. State of Maharashtra
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Central Bureau of Investigation and Others vs. Keshub Mahindra and Others
Keshub Mahindra vs. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 129
Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana
Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla vs. State of Maharashtra
Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat
Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan
Nitinchandra Somnath Raval vs. State of Gujarat and Others
P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala
Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor
Rustom Sherior Irani vs. State of Maharashtra
R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others
Sushil Ansal vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation
State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa
Sham Sunder vs. State of Haryana
Sarabjeet Singh vs. State of U.P. (1984) 1 SCC 673
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 the requirement of sufficient grounds and prima facie evidence for framing charges against the accused at the stage of section 227 proceedings.
(1) Mens rea is essential for a negligent act to be brought in ambit of criminal liability.(2) Negligence in civil law may not be necessarily a negligence in criminal law.
The trial court upheld the framing of murder charges without necessitating detailed reasoning, confirming that a prima facie case existed based on evidence presented.
Common intention for liability under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from circumstances and joint participation, not solely from direct evidence.
Sufficient prima facie evidence, including intent tied to enmity, justifies charge framing under IPC Section 304(2) in a case involving reckless driving leading to death.
The existence of common intention among co-accused can be inferred from the circumstances without requiring premeditation; mere participation in a crime does not establish joint liability.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.