Culpable homicide – Electrocution of employees working on shop sign board
Appellant No.1 was doing the interior decoration of the shop and Appellant No.2 was the Store Operation Manager of the Company which had taken the shop on lease.
On 27.9.2013, while the decoration work of front side of the shop and the sign board was undertaken by two employees of appellant no.1, on iron ladder, they were struck by electricity. They got electrocuted and fell down. They were declared dead.
After more than two months, FIR was filed that the appellants did not provide safety equipments like belt, helmet, rubber shoes, etc; to deceased employees. The appellants were responsible for the unnatural death of employees since they had knowledge that there was risk to their lives.
Charge-sheet for offences under Sections 304A, 182, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC was filed against the appellants.
The appellants filed application under Section 227 Cr PC for discharge.
HELD that non-furnishing of safety equipments would not make it a criminal offence. Therefore, to commit the offence of culpable homicide, intention or knowledge is of crucial importance that that a positive act must be done by the doer with the intention that such act would cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or he having the knowledge that by such an act, death may be caused.
Even if we take the allegations against the appellants as correct, there was no intention on the part of the appellants or they had knowledge that by asking employees to work on the sign board, they had knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death. No prima facie case culpable homicide can be said to have been made out against the appellants.
Distinction between Discharge from the criminal case at initial stage and acquittal at the trial and Importance of Discharge
At the stage of discharge, court is only required to consider as to whether there are sufficient materials which can justify launch of a criminal trial against the accused. By its very nature, a discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal. Acquittal is at the end of the trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused; but when an accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify launch of a criminal trial against the accused. Once he is discharged, he is no longer an accused.
Judgment dated 7.3.2025 of the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2024 of Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and another Vs. State of Maharashtra.
