Fatal Factory Accident Does Not Constitute Culpable Homicide Without Prima Facie Knowledge of Likely Death; Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Sections 304 Part II and 308 IPC Charges, Holds Expert Reports and CCTV Must Be Considered at Charge-Framing Stage

Case Name: Parmod Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 30 September 2026

Citation: CRR-1481-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the mere occurrence of an industrial accident resulting in multiple fatalities, even where allegations of defective machinery, inadequate maintenance and failure to implement safety precautions are raised, does not automatically attract the offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC or attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 IPC. For framing charges under these provisions, the material collected during investigation must prima facie disclose the requisite intention or knowledge attributable to the accused. The gravity of the consequences cannot substitute the mental element necessary to constitute the graver offences.

Relying upon Keshub Mahindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 6 SCC 129, arising out of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the Court reiterated that criminal liability under Section 304 Part II IPC requires prima facie material indicating that the accused committed an act with knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. Where the material establishes, at the highest, rashness or negligence without the necessary knowledge, the appropriate offences for consideration may be Sections 287 and 304-A IPC.

The Court further held that expert reports prepared by competent technical authorities and CCTV footage forming part of the investigative record cannot be excluded from consideration at the stage of framing charges merely because they have not been formally proved. The standard governing consideration of charges is fundamentally different from the evidentiary standard applicable at trial. At the preliminary stage, the Court must examine the entire material collected during investigation to determine whether a prima facie case exists, without conducting a detailed examination of admissibility, authenticity or ultimate probative value.

The High Court also held that the pendency of separate proceedings under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, against a different person does not, by itself, attract the constitutional protection against double jeopardy or extinguish criminal liability under the IPC. The protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked by the petitioners merely because a Factories Act complaint concerning the same accident had been instituted against the alleged occupier and manager of the factory, who was not among the petitioners.

Consequently, the Court quashed the charges under Sections 304 Part II and 308 IPC but declined to terminate the prosecution altogether, directing the framing of fresh charges under Sections 287 and 304-A IPC.

Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, examined the legality of criminal charges arising from a fatal industrial accident at Lifelong Company, Dharuhera, District Rewari. The principal controversy was whether alleged failures in industrial safety and maintenance, resulting in serious burn injuries and the subsequent deaths of several workers, furnished sufficient grounds for framing charges under Sections 304 Part II and 308 IPC, or whether the material disclosed, at the highest, offences involving rashness or negligence.

The proceedings originated from an incident dated 16.03.2024, when a fire and explosion occurred at the factory premises. According to the initial complaint lodged by injured worker Raj Kumar, a boiler dust collector had burst, causing burn injuries to several employees. The complainant alleged that the company owners, concerned officers and contractor had failed to maintain the equipment properly and had kept the emergency exit gate closed.

FIR No. 78 dated 17.03.2024 was accordingly registered at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari, initially under Sections 287, 337 and 34 IPC. During investigation, several injured workers succumbed to their injuries, following which Sections 308 and 304 Part II IPC were added, while Sections 304-A and 337 IPC were deleted. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2025, passed an order dated 06.03.2026 framing charges against the accused. Challenging the order and seeking quashing of the proceedings, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending that the material collected during investigation failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the graver offences.

The petitioners argued that the occurrence was attributable to technical and operational factors, including an electrical fault and accumulation of combustible aluminium dust, rather than any deliberate act or conduct involving knowledge that death was likely to result. It was submitted that the factory was operating under the requisite statutory permissions and that an industrial accident, however grave its consequences, could not automatically establish criminal culpability under Sections 304 Part II and 308 IPC.

The petitioners further contended that criminal responsibility could not be attributed merely on the basis of designation, ownership or association with the establishment. According to them, the trial Court had failed to undertake the necessary assessment of the specific role and culpable conduct attributable to each accused.

An additional challenge was founded upon the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioners submitted that the alleged safety violations fell within the special statutory framework governing factories and that separate proceedings under Section 92 of the Factories Act had already been instituted in connection with the same accident. It was therefore argued that parallel criminal proceedings under the IPC were impermissible.

The State opposed the petition, relying upon the statements of injured witnesses, medical evidence, scene-of-crime inspection and the deaths of several workers. It maintained that the investigative material disclosed serious lapses in industrial safety and that the explanation attributing the incident to technical factors required examination during trial. The State also contended that statutory approvals did not absolve persons responsible for operating or maintaining industrial equipment from criminal liability.

Upon examining the police report, the High Court noted that the prosecution case rested substantially upon allegations that the boiler dust collector had experienced similar bursts on two earlier occasions and that the contractor, factory owners and concerned officers had been informed of the defects but failed to undertake necessary repairs.

However, the Court found that the investigative record also contained technical material bearing directly upon the origin and mechanism of the accident, which had not been adequately considered while framing charges.

The National Safety Council/Safety Audit Team had conducted an independent inspection of the factory between 15.04.2024 and 17.04.2024. Its report recorded that the fire had originated near a buffing machine and that no serious lapse or gross negligence had been observed during the inspection. The expert team identified several possible ignition sources, including an electrical short circuit, electrostatic charge and friction generated during the buffing operation.

According to the National Safety Council report, the initial spark or ignition energy appeared to have ignited fine aluminium dust accumulated near the machine. The fire subsequently spread to an adjacent PVC suction pipe. The CCTV footage examined by the team showed that an operator had attempted to extinguish the initial fire by striking or rubbing the affected area with his foot, an action which might have aggravated the smouldering material and accelerated the spread of flames.

The resulting combustion of dispersed aluminium dust produced a deflagration, which propagated through the connected ducting into the dust collection system and culminated in a major explosion.

The Court also examined the report submitted by the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Gurugram-II. That inquiry attributed the generation of the spark to the presence of a foreign metallic particle in the buffing wheel during the manufacturing process. It further identified deficiencies in the precautions undertaken to prevent sparks and backfire from entering the dust collection system, inadequate maintenance of pipelines and ducts, insufficient dust-control measures and failure to provide necessary instructions and training to workers.

The High Court observed that the two technical inquiries independently attributed the genesis of the accident to a spark generated during buffing operations, rather than to the spontaneous bursting of a boiler as initially alleged.

The Court noted that the police report had substantially relied upon the complainant’s version without an apparent independent inquiry to corroborate the asserted cause of the occurrence. The expert reports and CCTV footage therefore assumed considerable significance in evaluating the prosecution’s factual foundation.

The trial Court, while rejecting the prayer for discharge, had relied principally upon statements alleging that the dust collector had burst on earlier occasions and that the management had failed to undertake repairs despite being informed. The National Safety Council report had not been accorded weight on the ground that it was yet to be formally proved, while the CCTV footage was considered insufficient by itself to conclusively establish the proximate cause.

The High Court found that discarding investigative material on the ground that it had not undergone formal evidentiary proof amounted to applying the standard governing trial at the preliminary stage of framing charges.

It emphasised that the Court considering charges must assess the entire investigative record for the limited purpose of determining whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused. Such an assessment does not involve a final determination of the credibility of witnesses, admissibility of expert opinions or ultimate guilt or innocence.

The National Safety Council report, being a technical assessment prepared by an expert body, and the contemporaneous CCTV footage were material circumstances directly relevant to the origin and manner of the accident. Their ultimate reliability remained subject to trial, but they could not legitimately be excluded from prima facie consideration.

The Court accordingly held that the trial Court had adopted an erroneous legal standard by declining to consider the expert report and CCTV material merely because they had not been formally proved.

Turning to the substantive offences, the High Court examined whether the prosecution material prima facie established the intention or knowledge necessary for Sections 304 Part II and 308 IPC.

The Court placed substantial reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment in Keshub Mahindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 6 SCC 129, arising from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. In that decision, the Supreme Court had considered the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC and causing death by rash or negligent conduct under Section 304-A IPC in the context of a catastrophic industrial accident.

The Supreme Court had held that a charge under Section 304 Part II requires prima facie material demonstrating that the accused committed an act with knowledge that it was likely to cause death. The existence of structural or operational defects, even where an industrial accident resulted in numerous fatalities, did not by itself establish the requisite mental element for culpable homicide.

The High Court observed that the principle was directly relevant to the present case, where the material indicated a technical sequence of ignition and explosion accompanied by alleged deficiencies in industrial safety, but did not prima facie establish the requisite intention or knowledge attributable to the petitioners.

The Court also relied upon Rajesh Aggarwal and Another v. State of Haryana, Criminal Revision No. 413 of 2001, decided on 27.11.2006. That case concerned a fire at a pharmaceutical manufacturing unit in which seven workers died. Despite allegations that the factory lacked requisite approvals, had a defective electrical system and maintained a locked emergency exit, the High Court had found insufficient material to support charges under Sections 302 or 304 Part II IPC and had directed alteration of the charge to Section 304-A IPC.

Applying the principles laid down in these decisions, the Court concluded that the material in the present case did not prima facie establish the mental element necessary for Sections 304 Part II and 308 IPC.

At the highest, the material could justify consideration of criminal liability for rash or negligent conduct under Sections 287 and 304-A IPC. The Court therefore found that the graver charges could not be sustained.

The High Court separately examined the contention concerning parallel prosecution under the Factories Act. Section 92 of the Factories Act provides penalties for contravention of the Act and the rules made thereunder, including where safety violations result in death or serious bodily injury.

The petitioners relied upon Naresh Rai and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 (3) Crimes 416, Ananthakumar and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2019 (3) Criminal Law Journal 3825, and Ajeet Vikram Bahadur Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024:BHC-AS:44547-DB, to contend that criminal proceedings under the IPC could not continue when prosecution under the special statute had already been initiated in respect of the same occurrence.

The Court, however, distinguished those authorities on their facts.

It found that the complaint under Section 92 of the Factories Act had been instituted against Sandeep Bhat, who was alleged to be the occupier and manager of the factory. The present petitioners were not being prosecuted in that complaint.

The High Court held that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2), read with Section 300 Cr.P.C., could not be invoked by persons who were not themselves being subjected to the separate proceedings under the Factories Act. The mere pendency of proceedings against another person in relation to the same incident did not extinguish the criminal liability, if any, of the petitioners under the IPC.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the argument that the entire prosecution was liable to be quashed on account of the separate Factories Act proceedings.

Nevertheless, after considering the investigation material, expert reports, CCTV footage and the legal distinction between culpable homicide and rash or negligent acts causing death, the Court found that the charges under Sections 304 Part II and 308 IPC were unsustainable.

The Court further noticed that the charges as framed did not contain the requisite particulars of the workers who had sustained injuries or those who had died in the incident. It therefore considered it necessary that appropriate charges be framed afresh with the relevant particulars.

The High Court consequently directed that proceedings continue only for the offences under Sections 287 and 304-A IPC, without expressing any final opinion upon the guilt or innocence of the petitioners.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court partly allowed the petitions and quashed the charges framed under Sections 304 Part II and 308 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide order dated 06.03.2026.