Architect Can't Be Prosecuted U/S 304A IPC For Death Of Construction Worker In On-Site Accident: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Vishwas V. and observed,

"The petitioner, as stated earlier, is an Architect who had designed the building and had given it to the owner in terms of the agreement. The owner had entrusted the work of construction to accused No.1 under whom the worker on the day working and the unfortunate incident of his death happened. It cannot be said that the design of the house by the petitioner was an act of rash or negligence that had caused the death of the worker."

The petitioner, an Architect Engineer by profession, had designed the house for one Chandrashekar, owner of a residential site. Upon inspecting the property personally, the petitioner took the dimensions of the property and owner's requirements for drawing up a design. The construction of the building and the plan of action for such construction was entrusted to a contractor by the site owner.

On October 10, 2020, an employee by name Mukesh who was working under the contractor died due to electrocution while undertaking construction in the site. The petitioner claimed that he came to know about the incident only when he attended the house warming ceremony of the house on an invitation by the owner in February 2021.

On February 17, 2022, the petitioner claims to have discovered that a crime is registered against him by the Police, concerning the incident of construction worker's death. The police had filed their chargesheet only against the petitioner under Section 304A r/w 34 of the IPC, while dropping the owner.

It was contended that the allegation for offence punishable under Section 304A IPC cannot be laid against the petitioner, as the petitioner was only an Architect who designed the house and it was for the contractor or the owner of the property to have taken such caution to prevent such mishap viz., death of the employee.

The complainant on the other hand argued that the design provided by the petitioner was the cause for the death of the worker and would submit that since the chargesheet is filed, it is for the petitioner to come out clean.

Findings:

The bench noted Section 304A of the IPC has two components in it. The result of death should be out of rash or negligent act by the accused. Section 304A of the IPC mandates that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide be punished. Therefore, the act should be either rash or negligent.

Following which it observed, "It would be too far to stretch Section 304A of the IPC to contend that a person who had designed the house is responsible for the death of a worker while undertaking construction under a contractor."

Relying on the Apex court judgment in the case of Ambalal D.Bhatt V. State Of Gujarat, (1972) 3 SCC 525, the bench held, "By no stretch of imagination the petitioner can be hauled into the proceedings for offences punishable under Section 304A of the IPC in the light of the fact that he was in any way neither responsible for construction nor was he present at the place of construction nor even had any proximity to the act which was either rash or negligent."

Accordingly it allowed the quashing petition.

Case Title: VISHWAS V v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5609 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 218

Date of Order: 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

Appearance: Advocate P.N.NANJA REDDY for petitioner; HCGP K.S.ABHIJITH, FOR R1; Advocate NISHAD, FOR R2

Click Here To Read/Download Order