Punjab and Haryana HC converts PG fire deaths charge from culpable homicide to causing death by negligence
The case has its genesis in the fire incident that occurred on February 22, 2020, in a Sector 32 house being operated as paying guest accommodation
More than six years after Chandigarh Paying Guest (PG) accommodation fire tragedy claimed the lives of three young women, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the material collected during investigation does not prima facie justify prosecuting the accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Bench observed that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, disclosed negligence rather than the knowledge necessary to attract the graver offence.
Allowing the criminal revision petition filed by PG operator Nitesh Bansal, Justice Virinder Aggarwal set aside the order of UT Additional Sessions Judge, dated August 2, 2021, insofar as it framed charges under Section 304 Part II IPC against Bansal and co-accused and the owner of the premises Gaurav Aneja. Instead, the High Court directed that both accused be tried under Section 304-A IPC (causing death by negligence) along with Sections 336 and 338 read with Section 34 IPC.
The Court further ordered that the Sessions Judge would transmit the case to UT Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial in accordance with law after framing charges since the offence under Section 304-A IPC was triable by a Magistrate.
Three girls died, two others suffered burn injuries
The case has its genesis in the fire incident that occurred on February 22, 2020, in a Sector 32 house being operated as a paying guest accommodation. According to the prosecution case recorded by the Court, police and the fire brigade rushed to the spot after receiving information regarding the blaze. During rescue operations, Riya, Pakshi and Muskaan were found unconscious inside the premises and were declared "brought dead" at the hospital. Two other occupants, Femina Sardana and Jasmine Kaur, sustained burn injuries and were admitted for treatment. Bansal was arrested on the same day.
Allegations of unsafe and illegally modified PG
The Bench, during the course of hearing was told that Bansal along with a co-accused was operating the PG in premises taken on lease from Aneja. Among other things, the prosecution alleged: "With a view to accommodating a larger number of girl residents, the rooms were illegally partitioned by using highly inflammable materials, including fiber and wood, without obtaining the requisite permissions from the competent authority."
Besides this, "the passages and staircases were excessively narrow, no emergency exit or fire-fighting arrangements had been provided, and the building was rendered wholly unsuitable for safe evacuation or rescue operations in the event of a fire or any other emergency."
Negligence alleged, but no prima facie knowledge of likely death
Examining the material collected during investigation and the police report under Section 173 CrPC, the High Court held that the essential ingredient required for Section 304 Part II IPC—knowledge that the act was likely to cause death—was absent.
Justice Aggarwal observed: "A prima facie consideration of the material collected during investigation and the final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC. does not disclose that the petitioner, Nitesh Bansal, was operating the paying guest accommodation with the knowledge that his acts would cause death of occupants a likely consequence."
Justice Aggarwal added: "The allegations, at their highest, attribute negligence in maintaining the premises and ensuring compliance with the requisite safety norms, but fall short of satisfying the essential ingredients constituting an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC." Bansal was represented by senior advocate RS Cheema, along with counsel Satish Sharma, Sumanjit Kaur and Prince Bharol.
Court finds inconsistency in prosecution's own approach
The High Court also found it significant that the trial court itself had framed charges under provisions dealing with rash and negligent acts in relation to the occupants who survived with injuries. "It is also significant to note that, in respect of the occupants who sustained injuries in the very same occurrence, the trial Court has framed charges under Sections 336 and 338 IPC, which specifically deal with rash and negligent acts endangering human life and causing grievous hurt."
Referring to the inconsistency, Justice Aggarwal observed: "Once the prosecution case itself proceeds on the premise that the injuries sustained by the surviving victims resulted from rash and negligent acts attracting the aforesaid provisions, there appears to be no justifiable basis to invoke Section 304 Part II IPC in respect of the deceased persons arising out of the same incident and founded upon an identical factual matrix."
Material insufficient for Section 304 Part II IPC
Referring to the settled legal position laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court in earlier decisions, Justice Aggarwal concluded that the evidence did not support framing of a charge under Section 304 Part II IPC.
The Court held: "The material collected during investigation, even if accepted at its face value, does not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, nor does it justify the framing of a charge thereunder."
Accordingly, the Court ruled, "the charge framed against the petitioner, Nitesh Bansal, under Section 304 Part II IPC, as well as the corresponding charge framed against co-accused Gaurav Aneja is hereby set aside. Instead, both the accused shall stand charged for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, along with Sections 336 and 338 read with Section 34 IPC."
Case sent to Magistrate
Before parting, the High Court directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate might either retain the case on his own file or assign it to the Court of the competent Illaqa Magistrate for trial in accordance with law after framing charge.
