Supreme Court Allows Discharge of Two Accused in Electrocution Deaths, Holds No Prima Facie Case Under S.304 Part II IPC

A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal by special leave against the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a criminal revision challenging a Sessions Court order which had refused discharge to two accused charged in connection with the electrocution deaths of two workers engaged in shop-front decoration.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court and quashed the denial of discharge, holding that no prima facie case under Section 304 Part II IPC was made out against the appellants. The Court reiterated the standard at the discharge stage, noting that “All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. It cannot also be said that the appellants had knowledge that by asking the two deceased employees to work on the sign board as part of the work of decoration of the frontage of the shop, they had the knowledge that such an act was likely to cause the death of the two deceased employees. As such, no prima facie case of culpable homicide can be said to have been made out against the appellants...”

Background The dispute arose from an incident on 27 September 2013 when two employees engaged by appellant No.1 to undertake shop-front decoration at a premises in Pune were electrocuted and fell from a height while working on a signboard. The police registered accidental reports under Section 174 CrPC and, on 4 December 2013, an FIR was lodged alleging that the appellants had not provided safety equipment (helmets, belts, rubber shoes) and were therefore responsible for the deaths; the chargesheet initially invoked offences including Section 304A IPC and other sections read with Section 34 IPC. The committing Magistrate, however, found material to invoke Section 304 Part II IPC and committed the case to the Sessions Court. The appellants sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC; the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed those applications on 1 April 2017. The Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal revision on 2 November 2017, finding “strong suspicion” and applying the test of a prudent person in respect of safety measures. This Court had earlier granted stay of proceedings on 9 January 2018 while hearing the special leave petition.

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC—culpable homicide not amounting to murder done “with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death” but “without any intention to cause death”—and held that the record did not show the requisite knowledge or intention. The Court explained the limited role of a court at the discharge stage: it was not to undertake a threadbare analysis but to ascertain whether “there are sufficient grounds to proceed.” The Court further distinguished the facts from Keshub Mahindra (Bhopal) where, in that exceptional context, the Court had directed trial on Section 304A for officials in actual charge. Having found that no prima facie case under Section 304 Part II (or even Section 304A on the material before the Sessions Court) was made out, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned orders and discharged the appellants. The Court recorded that appellants had paid compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and that one appellant had provided employment and educational support to affected family members; however, its decision rested on the absence of legal ingredients for culpable homicide. The appeal was allowed and the discharge applications (Exhibits Nos. 6 and 10 in Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014) were allowed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 338 (Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2024) Case Title: Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment