Supreme Court Discharges Employers In Culpable Homicide Case Over Electrocution Death Of Workers Engaged For Decoration

The Supreme Court recently discharged two persons accused of not providing safety equipment (e.g., helmets, safety belts, rubber shoes) to their employees, leading to their deaths due to electrocution while working on a signboard by using an iron ladder.

An FIR was registered against the Appellants under Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Trial Court and High Court rejected the appellants' (employers) discharge application, holding that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

Challenging the impugned decisions, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court arguing that no offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC was made out against them because the essential ingredients of the offence were lacking i.e., the appellants did not have the requisite knowledge or intention to cause death neither there was an evidence presented specifying their rash or negligent behaviour to attract the penal provision of under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that it was incumbent upon the courts below to have a prima facie view while deciding an application for discharge on whether the offence alleged against the applicant was made out or not.

The Court held that the appellants lacked requisite knowledge or intention to cause death. 

“the 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. 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.”, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and discharged the Appellants from the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Case Title: YUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. S S Ray, Adv. Ms. Praveena Gautam, AOR Mr. Pawan Shukla, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalyan, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Rakhi Ray, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.