Kerala HC Clears Contractor In Rooftop Electrocution Death | Harm Was Unforeseeable Under Section 304A IPC
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun quashed the final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that, in the given circumstances, there was no direct or proximate cause linking the petitioner’s actions to the fatal accident, and therefore, criminal rashness or negligence could not be attributed. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous case was allowed, and the proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, were quashed.
The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No. 690 of 2023 registered at Anthikkad Police Station, Thrissur. The case arose from a fatal workplace accident on 10 June 2023 at the Manalur Family Health Centre, where one Akhil, a worker engaged in plumbing tasks on the building's rooftop, came into contact with a live 11KV electrical line and died after falling. The case was subsequently taken on file as C.C. No. 483 of 2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur.
The original contract for carrying out tress work over the roof of the health centre was awarded to the petitioner based on an estimate prepared by the LSGD Assistant Engineer, who was arrayed as Accused No.3 in the case. The petitioner, in turn, subcontracted the plumbing portion of the work to Accused No.2. On the date of the incident, while Accused No.2 and his workers were executing plumbing work, the deceased Akhil reportedly stretched out his hand to fix a reducing coupling and accidentally touched the 11KV electric line running near the building, resulting in his electrocution and fall from the rooftop.
Following the incident, a case under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC was registered, and the petitioner was included as an accused. The petitioner approached the High Court by filing a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the final report and all related proceedings against her before the Magistrate.
In support of the petition, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident occurred during the plumbing work entrusted to Accused No.2, and the deceased was working under him. It was argued that even if all prosecution allegations were accepted at face value, no element of rash or negligent conduct on part of the petitioner could be made out. The defence maintained that the petitioner had no knowledge or foreseeability of the presence of the 11KV live electric line in close proximity to the site, and the accident was entirely unintentional and unforeseen.
The learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner had accepted the contract and executed the work without duly considering the proximity of high-voltage electric lines. It was argued that the petitioner bore responsibility for failing to take necessary safety precautions and for contributing to the unsafe working environment that led to the accident. The State further contended that the Assistant Engineer (Accused No.3) had also acted without obtaining proper approvals and that these collective lapses necessitated prosecution.
The Court considered both submissions and proceeded to examine the legal applicability of Section 304A in the present factual matrix.
Justice V.G. Arun noted that “the tress work was awarded to the petitioner following the prescribed procedure and the petitioner gave the plumbing works on sub-contract to the 2nd accused.” The Court recorded that “there is no dispute also to the fact that deceased Akhil was working under the 2nd accused.”
Referring to the ingredients of the offence under Section 304A of IPC, the Court stated: “304A - Causing death by negligence - Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
The Court explained the concept of criminal negligence by observing:“The criminality as far as rash acts are concerned, lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences.”
Further, the Court stated:“Criminal negligence occurs when there is gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise the required care and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances, was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.”
Elaborating on the principles of reasonable care, the Court recorded:“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or, the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
The Court clarified that:“In order to attract the offence under Section 304A, the death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused.”
In applying these principles to the facts before it, the Court observed:“The connecting link between the death and the petitioner is the entrustment of the tress work to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be attributed with criminality in taking up the work, since the harm involved, due to the passing of live electric wires, adjacent to the building was not foreseeable.”
It was noted:“The unfortunate incident occurred when the worker stretched his hand while fixing the reducing coupling, as part of the plumbing work, and accidentally touched the live wire.”
Accordingly, the Court held:“In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be attributed with either rashness or negligence.”
For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-II final report in Crime No.690 of 2023 of Anthikkad Police Station and all further proceedings, as against the petitioner, in C.C.No.483 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, are quashed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan and Smt. N.P. Asha, Advocates
For the Respondents: Sr. Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M.K., Advocate for the State
Case Title: Noormida v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:43245
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 314 of 2025
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun
