Karnataka HC Charges Residents' Association Members U/S 304A IPC For Negligent Death Of Minor Who Drowned In Complex's Swimming Pool

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the Association members of Prestige LakeSide Habitat Home Owners Association, where a minor child had slipped into the swimming pool in the apartment complex and died by drowning. Instead, the court charged them under Section 304A of the IPC.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by Debashish Sinha who is the President of the association and other members and quashed the charges levelled against them under Section 304 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC the court charged them with Section 304A of the IPC (causing death by negligence).

It said “In exercise of my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., I deem it appropriate to obliterate the offence laid against these petitioners for offence under Section 304 of the IPC and charge them with Section 304A of the IPC, as admittedly, these petitioners were in-charge of the affairs of the apartment complex and are prima facie negligent.”

As per the prosecution case on 28-12-2023 the daughter of the Rajesh Kumar Damerla slipped into the swimming pool in the apartment complex and died by drowning. On 8-02-2024, a complaint came to be registered against the President and office bearers of the Association after investigation a charge sheet against these petitioners were filed.

The petitioner sought quashing of the case contending that there is no intention of the petitioners to commit homicide, which is the necessary requirement of Section 304 of the IPC. It was argued that if further proceedings were permitted to be continued, it would become an abuse of the process of law. It was also said that no apartment complex had a guard at swimming pools.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying that petitioners are primarily responsible for the negligent act which has led to the death of the child. It was stated that they were responsible for the affairs of the apartment complex, and the post-mortem report clearly indicates that the death was caused due to drowning of the child in the swimming pool.

Findings:

The bench on going through the records noted that the death happened due to lack of supervision of the swimming pool by the guard or the absence of a lifeguard near the swimming pool.

It then observed “It cannot be said that they (petitioners) are not accountable or responsible for the happening in the apartment complex, particularly the event of the kind.”

Court noted that Section 304 of the IPC punishes culpable homicide which does not amount to murder. For an offence to become punishable under Section 304 of the IPC, it is necessary that it has ingredients of Section 299 of the IPC which defines culpable homicide.

The court said “The officer-in-charge of the police station appears to have blissfully ignored looking into Section 299 of the IPC. There can be no intention to kill, attached to these petitioners, in the case at hand. Therefore, Section 304 of the IPC is loosely or erroneously laid against the petitioners.”

Following which it said, “Though culpability, in the case at hand, is on the face of it existing, 'mens rea' is absent, as there is no intention to murder. Such blameability would only hinge upon negligence. Therefore, it ought to have been a case of Section 304A of the IPC and not Section 304 of the IPC, as is laid against the petitioners.”

It added that the knowledge of the consequences of committing an act which would directly result in death would become intention and lead to culpability.

If the person does not even intend to cause harm, but an act has resulted in causing death, culpability is absent. Therefore, the section which deals with causing death by negligence ought to have been invoked and not section 304 of the IPC, the Court said.

Rejecting the contention of the petitioners that no apartment complex had guards kept at swimming pools, the court said “If accepted, will have a disastrous effect on the safety of the residents particularly, the children of infant age. Therefore, the office bearers of the Association should bring in safety measures, subject to just exceptions of privacy of the residents.”

It added, “If any apartment complex has a swimming pool and the said swimming pool is left unguarded without any lifeguard or without any safety measures taken as the case would be, those apartment complexes would be doing so at their own peril.”

The court opined that members of every apartment Association protect the lives of infants in the apartment complex by bringing in such measures that would avoid any such mishap, so that innocent lives are not casually lost.

It was stated that the petitioners were all members of the Associatio, who were elected to take care of every grievance of the residents in the apartment complex and also for the purpose of its upkeep.

Accordingly, the court partly allowed the petition by saying “Since it is an admitted that no lifeguard is even appointed, to guard the pool at appropriate hours, nor the pool itself is guarded by placing safety measures around the pool, which the petitioners were obliged to provide and take care of, they will have to come out clean in a full blown trial, not for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC, but for offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, as prima facie, I find negligence on the part of the petitioners.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta a/w Advocate N S Sriraj Gowda for Petitioners.

HCGP THEJESH P for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

Case Title: Debhashish Sinha & Others AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15958 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order