Science educator’s sodium-water demonstration was not malicious: Karnataka High Court quashes FIR

Respondent No. 2, a police constable, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had dropped sodium into a pond, causing an explosion that could endanger people nearby.

The police registered Crime No. 114/2024 for offences under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, read with Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner submitted that he had conducted and recorded the experiment at a private farm to demonstrate the sodium–water reaction for educational purposes.

He sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the allegations in the complaint and FIR disclosed an offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, including the required element of unlawfulness and malice.

Whether the alleged conduct warranted continuation of proceedings under Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act penalises a person who unlawfully and maliciously causes, by an explosive substance, an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property; actual injury is not necessary.

Section 2(a) defines “explosive substance” to include materials for making an explosive substance and apparatus, machines, implements or materials used or intended to be used to cause or aid an explosion in or with an explosive substance.

Section 3(b) prescribes a separate penalty for explosions involving specified special-category explosive substances, defined in Section 2(b).

The Court also considered the FIR’s invocation of Section 288 BNS, but identified no separate extended exposition of that provision in its reasoning.

The Court treated the alleged event as an experiment demonstrating the known reaction between sodium and water, producing sodium hydroxide, hydrogen and heat.

It observed that sodium, in the circumstances described, was used for that experiment and was not itself an explosive substance.

The experiment was conducted at a private farm in a purpose-built pond and was recorded and published for students; the Court considered that conduct inconsistent with an inference of maliciousness on the basis of the complaint.

Although it did not endorse the manner of the experiment, the Court concluded that the allegations did not justify subjecting the petitioner to criminal investigation and trial.

It cautioned that any further similar conduct by the petitioner would be viewed strictly and permitted him to apply to the jurisdictional Magistrate for return of seized material.