Financial Investment Without Involvement In Construction Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 304 IPC

The applicant sought to quash an order dated 03.12.2011 passed by the Sessions Court, which rejected his discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in a case involving the collapse of the Sangemarmar Complex during the 2001 Gujarat earthquake.

The collapse resulted in 11 deaths.

Investigation revealed that construction occurred between 1989 and 1991, nearly a decade before the natural calamity.

The applicant contended he was merely a financier, while legal permissions and ownership documents were held by one Mr. Sodhan, who had explicitly identified the applicant as an unauthorized investor in prior 1991 litigation.

The prosecution alleged the applicant played an active role in construction and conspiracy.

1. Whether the applicant can be held liable under Section 304 of the IPC for culpable homicide in the absence of evidence showing his role as a builder or owner

2. Whether the essential ingredient of mens rea (knowledge or intention) is satisfied when a building collapses due to a natural calamity a decade after construction

3. Whether the material on record justifies the continuation of trial or if the applicant is entitled to discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

The Court primarily applied Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding discharge when there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused

It applied Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires the prosecution to prove mens rea—specifically the intention or knowledge that an act is likely to cause death

The Court relied on the precedent of Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that if two views are possible at the discharge stage, the one favoring the accused must be adopted

It further cited State of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh to distinguish between Section 304 and Section 304A IPC regarding the necessity of specific evidence for intention or knowledge

The Court noted that the case record failed to establish a nexus between the applicant and the construction activity, as all administrative permissions and indemnity bonds were in the name of the builder, Mr. Sodhan

The Court reasoned that for a charge under Section 304 IPC to stand, the prosecution must prove the accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death; however, the decade-long gap between construction and the collapse, coupled with the intervening high-intensity earthquake, suggests structural failure could be attributed to age or natural calamity rather than criminal intent

The Court found that the Sessions Judge erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the applicant to prove he was not a builder, whereas the burden lay on the prosecution to prima facie establish his involvement

Since the material did not disclose even a prima facie case of mens rea or active participation in construction, the Court determined that the discharge filter must be applied to prevent the rigors of a full trial

The High Court allowed the revision application and quashed the Sessions Court order dated 03.12.2011. The applicant was discharged from all alleged offences, including Sections 304 and 120B of the IPC and provisions of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act.