Supreme Court judgment related to the discharge of two appellants, from a sessions case. The case originated from the deaths of two employees due to electrocution and a fall while working on a sign board, leading to charges under Section 304 Part II and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court reviews the Trial Court’s and High Court’s decisions to reject discharge applications, scrutinizing the presence of intent or knowledge required for the alleged offenses and comparing the facts to a precedent case, Keshub Mahindra. Ultimately, the Court found insufficient grounds to proceed with a criminal trial and granted the appellants’ discharge.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227 – Causing death by Negligence – Discharge allowed – Offence under Sections 304A/182/201 read with Section 34 IPC – Two deceased employees of appellant No. 1 were undertaking the work of decoration of the front side of the shop – As part of the said work, they were working on the sign board which was approximately at a height of 12 feet from the ground level – For this purpose, they were provided with an iron ladder – 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 –
Held that 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 – Both the Trial Court and the High Court fell in error in rejecting the discharge applications of the appellants – Order of the Trial Court and that of the High Court liable to set aside and quashed – Consequently, the discharge applications allowed and appellants are discharged from Sessions Case.
(Para 17 and 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227 – Criminal Procedure – Discharge – Section 227 CrPC contemplates that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so – 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 – 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.
(Para 16)
(C) Penal Code, 1860, Section 299 – Culpable homicide – Positive act required – All culpable homicides are murders except in the cases excepted under Section 300 IPC – Thus, except the cases specifically exempted under Section 300 IPC, all other acts within the meaning of Section 299 IPC would amount to committing the offence of culpable homicide – However, for committing the offence of culpable homicide, 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 – What, therefore, is significant is that the doer of the act must have the intention of causing death or the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or has the knowledge that by doing such an act he is likely to cause death – Therefore, to commit the offence of culpable homicide, intention or knowledge is of crucial importance.
(Para 12.3)
(D) Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – When attracted – Section 304 Part II IPC would be attracted if anyone commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – 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.
(Para 12.4)
Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther V. State Of Maharashtra
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 338: (DoJ 07-03-2025)
