The Bench Comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India recently discharged two employers accused under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC (Now Section 105 of BNS,2023) in connection with the electrocution deaths of two workers engaged in decoration work. The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offence were not met, as the appellants lacked the requisite knowledge or intent to cause death.
Facts:
Two workers were electrocuted while working on a signboard at a height of 12 feet using an iron ladder. The appellants (employers) were accused of failing to provide adequate safety equipment such as helmets, safety belts, and rubber shoes. FIR was registered under Sections 304 and 304A IPC((Now Section 105,106 of BNS,2023) . The Trial Court and the High Court rejected the appellants' discharge plea, holding that there was sufficient material to proceed under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Issues:
- Whether the appellants had the requisite knowledge or intent to attract Section 304 Part II IPC?
- Whether the incident was purely accidental or caused due to negligence by the appellants?
- Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the discharge application of the appellants?
Contentions of the Petitioners:
There was no intention or knowledge on their part to cause death. No evidence established rash or negligent behavior sufficient to attract Section 304 Part II IPC. The case should not have been committed to the Sessions Court under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The appellants failed to provide safety equipment, which led to the worker’s death. The lack of precautionary measures indicated negligence, justifying the charges. The lower courts correctly held that a prima facie case existed under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court stated that while deciding a discharge application, courts must determine if the alleged offence is prima facie made out. The Court found that the deaths were accidental and that the appellants lacked the knowledge or intent required for a charge under Section 304 Part II IPC. The judgment noted that the committing Magistrate confined the case to Section 304 Part II IPC, ignoring Section 304A IPC, which deals specifically with death by negligence.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the lower court orders, allowed the appeal, and discharged the appellants from the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. The Court held that no prima facie case was made out against the appellants for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
