LexYUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 502 : 2025 INSC 338 Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2024) 07 March 2025 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision application filed by the appellants assailing the order of the trial court dismissing their discharge applications u/s.227 CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.34, 304 Part II, 304A – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Appellant no.1 was doing interior decoration of the shop on contract basis and the appellant no.2 was the Store Manager of the company which had taken the said shop on lease – Two employees of appellant no.1 while working on the sign board of the shop at a height of 12 feet from the ground level, struck by electricity, got electrocuted, and fell from iron ladder resulting in multiple injuries, leading to their death – Registration of FIR – Chargesheet against the appellants for committing an offence u/ss.304A/182/201 rw s.34 IPC since the appellants did not provide any safety equipments to the deceased employees – Appellants sought their discharge u/s. 227 which was dismissed – Revision applications thereagainst dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Basic ingredient of s.304 Part II is presence of knowledge and absence of intention – Doer must have the knowledge that the act performed by him would likely cause death etc. but there should not be any intention to cause death – No prima facie case can be said to have been made out against the appellants for committing an offence u/s.304 Part II – No intention on the part of the two appellants to cause the death or cause such bodily * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 503 Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra injury as was likely to cause the death of the two deceased employees – Also, the appellants had no knowledge that by asking the two deceased employees to work on the sign board that such act was likely to cause death – Thus, the basic ingredients for commission of offence u/s.304 Part II are absent – Furthermore, at the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is not required to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by the prosecution – It is only to be seen that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused – On facts, the incident was purely accidental, and no prima facie case can be said to be made out against the appellants for committing an offence u/ss.304A and 304 Part II – In any case, the trial court only considered culpability of the appellants qua s.304 Part II as the Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Sessions confining the allegations against the appellant to s. 304 Part II and not s.304A – Both the trial court and High Court erred in rejecting the discharge applications of the appellants – Order of the trial court and impugned order set aside and quashed, and the discharge applications are allowed. [Paras 12.3, 12.4, 14-16, 17.3, 18] Case Law Cited Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P. [1996] Supp. 6 SCR 285 : (1996) 6 SCC 129 – distinguished. List of Acts Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Discharge; Culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Knowledge; Intention; Fall from iron ladder; Electrocution; Safety equipments; Murder; Prima facie case of culpable homicide; Unnatural death. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRRA No. 269 of 2017 504 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv., S S Ray, Ms. Praveena Gautam, Pawan Shukla, Ms. Kanika Kalyan, Ms. Akanksha Tyagi, Ms. Rakhi Ray. Advs. for the Respondent: Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ujjal Bhuyan, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Application No. 269 of 2017. 2. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.11.2017, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.