Sections 304A IPC | Workplace Accidents Cannot Be Criminalized Unless There Is Intent or Knowledge of Likely Death: Supreme Court Discharges Accused

Mere Failure to Provide Safety Equipment Does Not Amount to Culpable Homicide - Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against two men accused of culpable homicide in an electrocution accident that killed two workers in Pune. The Court held that while ensuring workplace safety is a fundamental duty of employers, failure to provide safety equipment alone cannot attract criminal liability under Section 304 Part II IPC unless there is intent or knowledge that death is likely to occur.

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivering the judgment in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, made it clear that “for an offense under Section 304 Part II IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused had knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death. Mere lack of safety precautions, without such knowledge or intent, does not amount to culpable homicide.”

The Court set aside the orders of the Bombay High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which had rejected the accused’s plea for discharge. Holding that no prima facie case was made out for culpable homicide, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings and discharged the accused from trial.

On September 27, 2013, a tragic accident at a shop in Pune led to the deaths of two workers, Salauddin Shaikh and Arun Sharma, who were electrocuted while installing a signboard at a height of 12 feet. The workers fell from an iron ladder and suffered fatal injuries. They were declared dead on arrival at Pune Hospital and Research Centre.

Initially, the police registered an accidental death report under Section 174 CrPC. However, two months later, on December 4, 2013, an FIR was filed against the shop owner and manager, alleging that they had failed to provide safety equipment, leading to the workers’ deaths.

The FIR registered at Vishrambag Police Station, Pune, stated: “The accused did not provide any safety belts, helmets, or rubber shoes to the deceased workers, despite knowing that their work involved risk of electrocution. By failing to take proper precautions, they were responsible for the unnatural deaths.”

A charge sheet was filed under Sections 304A, 182, and 201 IPC, but the Magistrate later modified it to Section 304 Part II IPC, making it a sessions triable case.

Trial Court and High Court Reject Discharge Plea, Supreme Court Steps In
The accused, Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and Nimesh Pravinchandra Shah, moved the Sessions Court seeking discharge, arguing that the accident was unforeseen and not caused by any intentional or reckless act on their part. They submitted that:

“The accused were not present at the scene, had no direct involvement in the incident, and could not have foreseen the risk of electrocution. There was no evidence that they had knowledge that electrocution was likely to occur. Failure to provide safety equipment is a workplace issue, not a criminal offense.”

The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dismissed the discharge applications on April 1, 2017, stating: “The accused were well aware that they had not provided safety gear, exposing the workers to electrocution risk. There is sufficient material to justify framing of charges under Section 304 Part II IPC.”

The accused then challenged the decision before the Bombay High Court, which upheld the trial court’s order on November 2, 2017, ruling: “A strong suspicion arises that the accused had knowledge that the way the workers were assigned the job would likely cause their death.”

The accused approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the trial in 2018 and granted leave in 2024 to determine whether a criminal case was justified.

Supreme Court: "No Evidence That Accused Knew Electrocution Was Likely"

The Supreme Court ruled that mere failure to provide safety equipment does not amount to culpable homicide unless the accused had knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death.

The judgment stated: “To invoke Section 304 Part II IPC, it must be established that the accused had knowledge that their act was likely to cause death. In this case, there is no evidence that the accused knew that electrocution would occur.”

Analyzing Section 299 IPC, which defines culpable homicide, the Court ruled: “To be guilty of culpable homicide, a person must have either the intention of causing death or the knowledge that death is a likely consequence of their act. In the absence of such knowledge, the act falls short of culpable homicide.”

The Court distinguished criminal negligence under Section 304A IPC from culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC, stating: “Negligence may amount to an offense under Section 304A IPC, but to elevate it to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II, there must be proof of knowledge that death was a likely outcome. The prosecution has failed to establish this essential ingredient.”

"Workplace Accidents Cannot Be Criminalized Unless There Is Gross Negligence or Recklessness"
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the accused could have foreseen the risk of electrocution simply because an iron ladder was used instead of wooden scaffolding.

The judgment emphasized that: “Industrial and workplace accidents, though unfortunate, cannot be criminalized unless they involve gross negligence or recklessness amounting to a willful disregard for human life.”

The Court noted: “There was no evidence that the accused deliberately disregarded a known risk. The prosecution’s argument relied on hindsight rather than actual knowledge at the time of the incident. Holding employers criminally liable for every accident, without proof of gross negligence, would set a dangerous precedent.”

Criminal Case Quashed, Accused Discharged

The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, ruling: “The charge under Section 304 Part II IPC is quashed. The accused are discharged from Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014. Criminal proceedings against them are terminated.”

The Court clarified that its ruling does not absolve the accused from any civil liability, stating: “Employers must ensure workplace safety, but failure to do so, unless accompanied by knowledge or reckless disregard for human life, does not attract criminal liability under Section 304 Part II IPC.”

"Justice Requires a Distinction Between Criminal Culpability and Workplace Negligence"

This judgment reaffirms that:

•    “Criminal prosecution for workplace accidents must be based on clear evidence of knowledge or reckless disregard for life.”

•    “Mere failure to provide safety equipment, without intent or knowledge of likely death, is not culpable homicide.”

•    “Workplace safety must be enforced through labor laws and civil remedies, rather than automatic criminal prosecution.”

By ensuring that accidental deaths are not unfairly criminalized, the Supreme Court has set a crucial legal precedent balancing justice, workplace safety, and fair trial rights.

Date of Decision : March 7, 2025