YUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2356 OF 2024:

DATE: 07/02/2025

BENCH: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

FACTS:

The appellants, Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and Nimesh Pravinchandra Shah, were charged in connection with the accidental electrocution of two workers, Salauddin Shaikh and Arun Sharma, on September 27, 2013, in Pune. At the time of the incident, the deceased workers were engaged in interior decoration work on a shop leased by M/s. Intergold Gems Private Limited, where appellant No. 2 was the Store Operation Manager, and appellant No. 1 was responsible for the decoration work. While working on the shop's signboard at a height of 12 feet, the workers suffered fatal electrocution and fell, sustaining severe head and arm injuries. They were declared dead on arrival at Pune Hospital and Research Centre. Initially, accidental reports were filed under Section 174 CrPC, but after more than two months, an FIR (No. 316/2013) was registered against the appellants on December 4, 2013, under Sections 304 and 304A IPC, alleging negligence in failing to provide safety equipment such as belts, helmets, and rubber shoes.

Following their arrest and subsequent release on the same day, the police filed a chargesheet, and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, found material to attract Section 304 Part II IPC, committing the case to the Sessions Court. The appellants filed discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC, arguing that there was no prima facie case and that they were not present at the scene. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, rejected the discharge applications, holding that the appellants were aware of the safety risks. Their criminal revision before the Bombay High Court was also dismissed on November 2, 2017, leading them to file an SLP (Crl.) No. 9928 of 2017 before the Supreme Court, where proceedings were stayed on January 9, 2018, and the matter was subsequently taken up for appeal.

ISSUES:

The main issues in this case is whether there was an error by the Trial Court and the High Court in rejecting the discharge applications filed by the appellant. 

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and Nimesh Pravinchandra Shah, setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court allowed the discharge applications, effectively clearing the appellants of criminal liability under Sections 304 Part II IPC and 304A IPC in Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014

The Supreme Court reasoned that for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, the act must have been committed with knowledge that it was likely to cause death, though without any intention to cause death. The Court found no evidence to suggest that the appellants possessed such knowledge. While the appellants may have failed to provide adequate safety equipment like safety shoes or belts, there was no indication that they were aware their actions could result in the fatal accident. The incident was deemed purely accidental rather than resulting from intentional or reckless conduct.

Further, the Court examined the precedent set in Keshub Mahindra vs. State of M.P., where criminal negligence was established under Section 304A IPC due to the large-scale Bhopal Gas tragedy. The Court noted that the circumstances in the present case were vastly different, with no comparable level of negligence or conscious disregard for safety. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under either Section 304 Part II IPC or Section 304A IPC, warranting the appellants’ discharge.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC and criminal negligence under Section 304A IPC. The Court's ruling highlights the requirement of knowledge as a crucial element for charges under Section 304 Part II IPC. In this case, the Court found no evidence suggesting that the appellants were aware their actions could likely cause death. While the absence of safety equipment may indicate negligence, the Court determined that this alone was insufficient to establish the level of awareness required under Section 304 Part II IPC. By emphasizing the accidental nature of the incident, the Court clarified that the appellants' conduct did not reflect the conscious recklessness or disregard for human life necessary for such a serious charge. This distinction reaffirms that criminal liability under Section 304 Part II IPC demands a higher threshold of culpability than mere negligence.

In evaluating the applicability of Section 304A IPC, the Court referenced the Keshub Mahindra case, recognizing that criminal negligence requires a degree of foreseeability and disregard for safety standards. While the appellants’ failure to provide safety equipment was unfortunate, the Court noted that the circumstances lacked the gross negligence and indifference seen in the Keshub Mahindra case. The Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that criminal law is not extended beyond its intended scope to penalize accidental incidents without evidence of deliberate or reckless conduct. By allowing the discharge applications, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal liability must be based on clear evidence of intent, knowledge, or gross negligence rather than speculative assumptions.