Bombay High Court
Suresh Sukumar Bargaleversus1 The State of Maharashtra Through Hadapsasar Police Station Pune
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The applicant is not liable under Section 304 IPC and is discharged from that charge, but may be tried under Section 304‑A IPC.
Summary
The applicant, a senior engineer, was charged under Section 304 of the IPC for the death of a labourer when a construction slab collapsed. He argued that he was not present at the time of the collapse and that at most his negligence could attract Section 304‑A, not Section 304. The State contended that the applicant directed the slab casting and knew the risk, justifying the Section 304 charge. The High Court examined the statutory language of Section 304 and the factual record, concluding that the applicant lacked the knowledge or intention required for culpable homicide. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the revision, discharging the applicant from the Section 304 charge while permitting prosecution under Section 304‑A. The matter was ordered to be tried on the lesser charge.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
- Whether the applicant should be discharged from the Section 304 charge and instead be charged under Section 304‑A IPC.
- Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the discharge application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 304, 304-A
Subjects
- criminal law
- culpable homicide
- negligent homicide
- Section 304 IPC
- Section 304-A IPC
- discharge application
- revision jurisdiction
- construction accident
Judgment
6-REVN-89-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2026
Suresh Sukumar Bargale ...Applicant/s
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Hadapsasar
Police Station Pune and anr. ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Hrishikesh Ghorpade along with Mr. Siddharth N. Sutaria and Mr.
Anup Patil, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this revision application is to the impugned
order dated 20th January 2026 passed below Exhibit-26 by Additional
Sessions Judge-14, Pune, whereby the learned Judge rejected the
discharge application filed by the applicant.
2. It is prosecution's case that the applicant was working as Senior
Engineer in the Execution Department of SJ Contractors Private Limited
and was supervising the construction of a canteen building for SEZ
Biotech Services at Manjari, Pune. On 3rd September 2019, under the
SHUBHADA supervision of the applicant, an under-construction slab was cast.
SHANKAR
KADAM Thereafter, the said slab collapsed. It is alleged that due to the negligence
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.09.12
16:59:38 +0530
Page 1 of 4
6-REVN-89-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
of the applicant, the said slab was wrongly and excessively cast, and one
labourer died due to the collapse of the slab. The applicant has been
charged under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the
IPC”).
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The statement of
witnesses shows that after casting the slab, the deceased was inspecting
the slab for cracks when the incident occurred. At the time of the incident
the applicant was not present. At the most, the charge against the
applicant could be under Section 304-A of the IPC. However, these facts
were not considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has rejected the
discharge application of the applicant, which is erroneous. Hence,
requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that as per directions of the
applicant, the said slab was cast. The applicant had knowledge that if the
slab was not properly cast, it would cause harm to the labourers or any
other person, hence, the applicant had knowledge about the incident.
Learned Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no
interference is required in it, and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order.
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :
Page 2 of 4
6-REVN-89-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with
the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death;
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with
the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death.
This Section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. From the record and statements of witnesses, it appears that as
per the instructions of the applicant, the slab was cast by the labourers.
The statements of some labourers are recorded by the police. In the said
statements, they have stated that after casting the slab, the incident
occurred at 8:00 pm. They have further stated that the slab may have been
cast more heavily on one side and due to that excess weight, it may have
collapsed.
6. From the above, it cannot be said that the applicant had
knowledge that such an incident would occur. At the most, the role of the
applicant can be attributed to causing harm or death by a negligent act,
which falls under Section 304-A of the IPC. It cannot be said that the
applicant can be held guilty under Section 304 of the IPC. However, the
applicant can be charged under Section 304-A of the IPC and tried
Page 3 of 4
6-REVN-89-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
accordingly, and his guilt shall be determined as per the evidence led by
the prosecution.
7. In view of above, I pass following order:
ORDER
a) The application is partly allowed.
b) The applicant is discharged from the charge under Section 304
(II) of the IPC.
c) The applicant shall be charged under Section 304-A of the IPC.
d) The matter be tried by the competent court.
The revision application is disposed of in above terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…