MP High Court: Omission to install window grill in teen’s electrocution case attracts negligence charge, not culpable homicide

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 concerning the death of 16-year-old Zahid, who allegedly came into contact with an 11,000-volt high-tension line through a window at the respondents’ madrasa.

The petitioner argued that the respondents’ omission to install an iron grill and shutters warranted prosecution under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), rather than Section 106; he also alleged police inaction, sought demolition of the madrasa building as illegal, and reported threats.

The State submitted that the accused had been arrested and a charge sheet filed under Section 106 BNS, and that demolition should be pursued under Section 307 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.

Whether the alleged omission to install an iron grill and shutters could make the case one under Section 105 BNS rather than Section 106 BNS

Whether the petitioner was entitled to writ relief concerning alleged police inaction, demolition of the building, and alleged threats

Section 100 BNS defines culpable homicide as causing death by doing an act with the specified intention or knowledge; the Court treated the requirement of an act as distinguishing the alleged conduct from an omission.

For removal of the allegedly illegal building, the Court identified Section 307 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 as the appropriate statutory route.

The Court found that the allegation concerned an omission—failure to install a grill and shutters—not an act meeting the Section 100 BNS definition of culpable homicide. It therefore accepted the State’s position that the case was properly proceeded with under Section 106 BNS.

The police-inaction claim was rejected because the accused had been arrested and a charge sheet filed.

The Court held that demolition should be pursued through the statutory mechanism under Section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act; regarding the alleged threats, the petitioner could complain to the appropriate authority or lodge an FIR.

The petitioner remained at liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings for demolition of the allegedly illegal building and to complain or lodge an FIR concerning the alleged threats.