Cause of Death should be a Direct Consequence of the act of the Accused and that should be an act either Rash or Negligent and Proximate to the cause of such Death: Karnataka High Court quote apex court’s Judgment   

The Karnataka High Court while quoting Apex court’s judgment stated that the cause of death should be a direct consequence of the act of the accused and that it should be an act either rash or negligent and proximate to the cause of such death.

Background 

The petitioner is an Architect Engineer by profession and is the co-founder of Crest Architects, Bangalore. One Chandrashekar, owner of a residential site situated at 20th Main, 4th Block bearing No.403 of Nandini Layout approaches the petitioner to design his house. Upon inspecting the property personally, the petitioner took the dimensions of the property and owner’s requirements for drawing up a design. The owner of the site agreed to the terms of the petitioner and entered into an agreement to design his house on 25-09-2019. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner fulfilled the requirement of the owner as per law. The construction of the building and the plan of action for such construction was entrusted to a contractor by the site owner. The petitioner had only drawn up the design and had also visited the site on several occasions to see whether the construction was coming up according to the design. The visits, according to the petitioner, were once in a month. 

An employee by name Mukesh who was working under the contractor died due to electrocution while undertaking construction in the site. 

Arguments 

Advocate P. N. Nanja Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, argued 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 owner of the property is let off while filing the charge sheet against the petitioner who is the Architect and has nothing to do with the mishap. 

Advocate Nishad, appearing for the respondent/complainant who is the relative of the employee seeked to justify the action of the police in filing the charge sheet against the petitioner, as according to him the design provided by the petitioner was the cause for the death of the worker. 

Decision 

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna  said that the facts of the case at hand clearly indicate that no offence under Section 304A of the IPC could be laid against the petitioner and, therefore, there is need to exercise jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to terminate such proceedings against the petitioner. 

The court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the proceedings pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 

Case title: Sri Vishwas V. v/s The State of Karnataka and Ors. 

Citation: WRIT PETITION No.5609 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

Click here to read the Order/Judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *