Absence of concrete evidence of intent or knowledge precludes framing of charges under Section 308 IPC.

The applicant sought discharge from an order dated 10th November 2025 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Keshod, which had denied his discharge for an offence under Section 308 of the IPC

The prosecution's case arose from an FIR lodged in 2023 following the interception of a vehicle carrying 2800 liters of suspected inflammable biodiesel without a permit

The applicant was implicated solely based on a statement by a co-accused (the driver), who claimed the liquid was procured from the applicant's "Dela" (storage house) in Gondal

While the applicant conceded that Section 285 IPC (negligent conduct with respect to fire) might apply, he challenged the invocation of Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide)

Whether the mere illegal storage or sale of an inflammable substance, based on the statement of a co-accused, is sufficient to attract the prima-facie ingredients of "attempt to commit culpable homicide" under Section 308 of the IPC.

The court primarily applied Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires that an act be committed with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death were caused by that act, the perpetrator would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder

It further distinguished between acts of direct commission and mere "possibilities" or "assumptions" of danger arising from illegal transportation

The court found that while the trial judge justified the charge on the ground that illegal transportation of biodiesel carries a "possibility of explosion," such a finding was based on assumptions and presumptions rather than concrete material

The High Court noted that the applicant was not the one transporting the substance; he was only named by a co-accused as the source

Upon reading the charge-sheet, the court observed a total lack of evidence showing that the applicant committed any specific act with the requisite intentional knowledge that could lead to culpable homicide

The court held that without attributing a specific act to the applicant that meets the high threshold of Section 308, the charge could not be sustained

The court held that the ingredients of Section 308 were not attracted against the applicant based on the available charge-sheet papers

However, the court clarified that this order was passed in view of these specific facts and would not serve as a general precedent