SAIFUDEEN BHARMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.29210 of 2010, are the accused 1 to 4, in case pending in S.C.No.572 of 2010, on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. THE petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.29294 of 2010 are the accused 5 and 6 in the same case.

(2.) THE case arises out of an unfortunate incident that led to the death of five persons and injuries to four others. Torrential rains struck Chennai on 4th and 5th of April 2005 and a five storied building at Door No.62, Santhome High Road, which was undergoing renovation, collapsed, leading to the deaths and injuries. A case was registered in Crime No.358 of 2005 for offences under Sections 304 and 288 IPC against ten persons. THE accused 1 to 4 are the owners of the building, while the accused 5 and 6 are the Managers working with the Company viz., Lookman Electro Plast Industries, belonging to the 1st Accused. Accused 7 and 8 are the Contractors and accused 9 and 10 are the Supervisors.

(3.) CHALLENGING the prosecution, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29294 of 2010 would submit that offence under Sections 324 [Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means], 325 [Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt] IPC and 3(1) [Punishment for committing mischief in respect of property] of Tamilnadu Prevention of Public Property (Destruction and Loss) Act, 1998, all require mens rea. In the facts of the instant case, it cannot be contended that the petitioners had the necessary intention to commit such offences. As regards charge under Section 304 (ii) IPC, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 2009 Crl.L.J 1418 [Baldev Raj Kapur Vs. State] to inform that there is no material to show that the petitioners were present on the spot, when the building collapsed or that the petitioner had inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased/injured labourers.