Bombay High Court Upholds Culpable Homicide Charge Against Contractors Over Exposed Vertical Iron Bars At Construction Site Leading To Worker's Death

A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice MM Sathaye held that leaving the vertical iron bars exposed prima facie makes out a case for culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the accused knew that workers in cranes suspended in air are working over them.

“apart from omission on the part of the Petitioners, there is also prima facie an overt act on their part which is in the nature of leaving dangerously exposed vertical iron bars embedded in the RCC column at the construction site. The Petitioners had, prima facie, knowledge that construction work over these bars was being carried out by men sitting in cabins of the cranes suspended in air and, therefore, leaving dangerously exposed vertical iron bars was like an invitation to disaster. It is this material which prima facie makes out a case for proceeding further against the Petitioners in the present criminal trial”, the court held.

One Amitkumar Gound, a construction worker at a site in Goregaon, fell from a crane on open iron bars in an RCC column and died. His wife alleged that the builder and the contractor did not provide safety belt, helmet, safety jacket, etc. to him and were responsible for his death. The police registered an FIR under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC against two sub-contractors Pinkesh Dhiraj Patel and Hiren Kirtikumar Rangani.

Last month, Justice Anuja Prabhudessai granted anticipatory bail to Rangani in the case. A Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus, the accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the case.

Advocate Prashant Aher for the accused argued that culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not made out in this case. He submitted that the intention to cause death is absent from the allegations in the FIR. He also contended that the Labour Commissioner has held that the incident was an accident, pure and simple.

APP JP Yagnik for the state submitted that leaving exposed vertical iron bars in the column led to Gound’s death. Further, whether or not there was any intention is a matter of trial, he argued.

The court said that just because there is a possibility that the accused may be acquitted doesn't mean that there is no sufficient ground for prosecuting.

The court said that the allegations in the charge sheet are quite specific. One part of the allegations relate to the gross negligence in performing their duty and the second part is about doing dangerous act, the court said.

The court agreed with the petitioners to the extent that as far as the omission of act is concerned, the offence of culpable homicide will not be attracted.

However, the court noted that for offence of culpable homicide there must be an overt act with the intention of causing death or the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death. Thus, even if the accused has knowledge that his act may result in death, the offence of culpable homicide would be complete, the court reiterated.

The court said that in the present case, there is a prima facie overt act on the part of the accused in leaving dangerously exposed vertical iron bar embedded in the RCC column at the construction site. Further, they prima facie had knowledge that leaving the bars exposed was an invitation to disaster, the court observed.

Therefore, a prima facie case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out in this case, the court held.

The court said that the Labour Commissioner did not record any finding on the criminal aspect of the incident. Just because the Commissioner granted compensation to Gound’s widow would not mean that a finding that the death occurred only accidentally and without any criminal intention or criminal knowledge is recorded, the court held.

The court said that there is a difference between considering material necessary for granting compensation and considering evidence necessary for recording a finding of guilt or innocence for an offence arising out of the same facts. The former has no bearing on the latter, the court held.

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 2879 of 2022

Case Title – Pinkesh Dhiraj Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 265