Negligence Isn't Enough: Supreme Court Discharges Accused, Emphasizing the Crucial Role of Intention and Knowledge in Culpable Homicide Cases.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: YUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

Citation: 2025 INSC 338 (Reportable)

Background

This appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 269 of 2017. The High Court dismissed the revision application, thereby upholding the order dated 01.04.2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014, which had dismissed the discharge applications filed by the appellants.

Facts of the Case

Appellant No. 1, Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther, was contracted for interior decoration of a shop in Pune. Appellant No. 2, Nimesh Pravinchandra Shah, was the Store Operation Manager of M/s. Intergold Gems Private Limited, which leased the shop.

Incident

  • On 27.09.2013, around 9:00 PM, two employees of Appellant No. 1, Salauddin Shaikh and Arun Sharma, were working on the shop's signboard.
  • The employees were provided with an iron ladder and were working at a height of approximately 12 feet.
  • They were electrocuted and fell, sustaining head and arm injuries. They were declared dead on arrival at the hospital.

FIR and Charges

  • Accidental reports were registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
  • An FIR was lodged on 04.12.2013 by Police Sub-Inspector Shri S.G. Patil against the appellants, alleging that they did not provide safety equipment like belts, helmets, and rubber shoes to the deceased employees.
  • The appellants were charged under Sections 304A/182/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  • The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, found material to attract Section 304 Part II IPC, and the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, as Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014.

Appellants' Contentions

  • The appellants filed discharge applications, contending that there was no material to show they committed the alleged offence and that the charges were groundless.
  • They argued they were not present at the place of occurrence and there was no negligence on their part, nor any intention or knowledge to cause the death of the employees.
  • They asserted that even if all witness statements were accepted, a conviction would not result, making the trial a futile exercise.

Arguments by the Respondent (State)

  • The respondent argued that the appellants were aware of the risks but failed to provide safety equipment.
  • The respondent claimed there was sufficient material to justify framing charges under Section 304 Part II IPC or Section 304A IPC.
  • Reliance was placed on the decision in Keshub Mahindra Vs. State of M.P., (1996) 6 SCC 129.

Relevant Legal Provisions

  • Section 304 Part II IPC: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death.
  • Section 34 IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  • Section 227 CrPC: Discharge of the accused if there is no sufficient ground to proceed against him.

Rationale

  1. Ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC: The court emphasized that to establish an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, the act must be done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death.
  2. Absence of Intention or Knowledge: The court found no intention on the part of the appellants to cause death, nor did they have knowledge that their actions were likely to cause the death of the employees.
  3. Principles of Discharge under Section 227 CrPC: The court reiterated that at the stage of discharge, a threadbare analysis of the prosecution's materials is not required. The court only needs to determine if sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused.
  4. Distinction from Keshub Mahindra: The court distinguished the facts of the case from Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P., noting that the latter involved the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, a case of gross negligence and widespread death.

Excerpt

Even if we take the allegation against the appellants as correct, we are afraid no prima facie case can be said to have been made out against the appellants for committing an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. From the record of the case, it is evident that there was no intention on the part of the two appellants to cause the death or cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death of the two deceased employees.

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.

However, on going through the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that facts in Keshub Mahindra and facts in the present case are poles apart. Keshub Mahindra arose out of the in-famous Bhopal Gas tragedy.

Points to Remember

  1. Culpable Homicide: Requires the act to be done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death.
  2. Section 227 CrPC: Allows for the discharge of an accused if there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against them.
  3. Discharge vs. Acquittal: Discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal, indicating the absence of materials to justify a criminal trial.
  4. Mens Rea: The presence of a guilty mind is essential for establishing offences like culpable homicide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, and discharged the appellants from Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014. The court held that no prima facie case was established against the appellants under Section 304 Part II IPC or Section 304A IPC, emphasizing the absence of intention or knowledge that their actions would likely cause death. This judgment reinforces the importance of mens rea in establishing criminal liability and the significance of Section 227 CrPC in preventing unwarranted criminal trials.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more

Unconstitutional Arrest: Vihan Kumar's Freedom Restored, Article 22(1) Violated, Police Fail to Communicate Grounds, Handcuffing in Hospital Condemned

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: VIHAAN KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA. Citation: 2025 INSC 162 (Reportable) Case Overview The Supreme Court of India heard the criminal appeal of Vihan Kumar against the State of Haryana, regarding his arrest in connection with FIR No. 121/2023 . The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest, alleging violations of his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India. The court's ruling focused primarily on the non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the appellant, deeming the arrest illegal. Factual Background Vihan Kumar was arrested on June 10, 2024 , in relation to an FIR concerning offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The appellant claimed his arrest occurred around 10:30 am, while the State claimed it was at 6:00 pm. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on June 11, 2024 , at 3:30 pm. Aft...
Read more