Supreme Court Allows Discharge In Electrocution Case; Says Absence Of Safety Measures Doesn’t Meet The Threshold Required U/s. 304 Part II IPC
The Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of the Bombay High Court which rejected the discharge applications by the Appellants.
The Supreme Court allowed the discharge of accused in an electrocution case while holding that absence of safety measures would not make out a prima facie case under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
The Court set aside the Judgment of the Bombay High Court which rejected the discharge applications by the Appellants. The employees engaged in the work of decoration of a shop were struck by electricity as a result of which they got electrocuted and fell down. It was alleged that the Appellants had not provided safety equipment such as safety belts, helmets, or rubber shoes to the deceased employees.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “While working on the sign board, they were struck by electricity as a result of which they got electrocuted and fell down resulting in multiple injuries leading to their death. It was purely accidental. On these basic facts, no prima facie case can be said to be made out against the appellants for committing an offence under Section 304A IPC, not to speak of Section 304 Part II IPC. In any case, the Trial Court only considered culpability of the appellants qua Section 304 Part II IPC as the committing Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Sessions confining the allegations against the appellant to Section 304 Part II IPC and not Section 304A IPC.”
Senior Advocates S.S. Ray and Gaurav Agarwal appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Shrirang B. Varma represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The police, upon completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet against the Appellants, charging them under Sections 304A, 182, and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet and was of the view that material existed to attract Section 304 Part II of the IPC, thereby committing the case to the Sessions Court.
The discharge applications were rejected on the ground that there was sufficient material to justify framing of charge under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The High Court observed that the Appellants had knowledge of the risk involved in working without safety equipment, and their failure to provide such equipment supported the inference that they had knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court explained, “At the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is not required to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by the prosecution. All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In other words, the materials should be sufficient to enable the court to initiate a criminal trial against the accused.”
The Court further explained that for an offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, there must be a positive act with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. The Court held that the material on record did not support the conclusion that the Appellants had such knowledge.
“Therefore, the requirement of Section 304 Part II IPC is that the doer must have the knowledge that the act performed is likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the basic ingredient of Section 304 Part II IPC is presence of knowledge and absence of intention. The doer must have the knowledge that the act performed by him would likely cause death etc but there should not be any intention to cause death,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court held that “we are of the view that both the Trial Court and the High Court fell in error in rejecting the discharge applications of the appellants. For the reasons stated above, the order of the Trial Court and that of the High Court are hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently, the discharge applications…are hereby allowed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 338)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates S.S.Ray and Gaurav Agarwal; AOR Rakhi Ray and Praveena Gautam; Advocates Pawan Shukla and Tissy Annie Thomas
Respondent: Advocates Shrirang B. Varma and Siddharth Dharmadhikari; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
