Allowed¶35

Meena Jagdish Ramani and Ors.- As per Court order dt 11.3.2025 Applicant no.1 withdrawn v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jan 2025REVN/15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision — discharge — Sections 304(II) r/w 34 IPC — death by fall into septic tank at public toilet after toilet pot broke (incident dated 04.03.2015) — architect who prepared plan of toilet and BMC Assistant Engineer who supervised construction held not liable even prima facie — no sufficient grounds for proceeding — Special Judge's rejection of discharge applications below Exh. 7 and 8 in Sessions Case No. 479 of 2016 quashed — applicants discharged — revisions allowed.

What did the court decide?

Orders below Exhibit-7 and Exhibit-8 passed by the learned Special Court quashed and set aside; applicants discharged from the offences leveled against them in Sessions Case No. 479 of 2016; both Revision Applications allowed and disposed of. ¶35

Meena Jagdish Ramani and Ors.- As per Court… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the applicants for the offence under Sections 304(II) r/w 34 IPC, or whether their discharge applications ought to have been allowed. +2 more

¶26

Court's answer

There are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the applicants; the learned Special Court did not consider these aspects while rejecting the discharge applications.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The architect who prepared the plan of construction of the public toilet cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased, nor can his negligence be attributed to the death.

¶26

Key takeaways

Supervision of the construction work of the toilet cannot be attributed as negligence in the incident, as the other toilet pots have not broken.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Shivkumar Dige, J.), 27 March 2025 — Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 15 of 2024 and 93 of 2023: The applicants, arraigned for offence under Sections 304(II) r/w 34 IPC in Sessions Case No. 479 of 2016 arising from the death of a woman who fell into a septic tank at a public toilet on 04.03.2015 when the toilet pot broke, challenged the learned Special Judge's order below Exhibits 7 and 8 rejecting their discharge applications. One applicant was the architect who prepared the plan of the toilet; the other was the BMC Assistant Engineer/supervisor of the work. Held: (i) the architect who merely prepared the plan of construction cannot be held responsible for the death, nor can his negligence be attributed to the death; (ii) the supervisory work cannot be attributed as negligence in the incident, as the other toilet pots have not broken; (iii) there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the applicants, and the Special Court failed to consider these facts. Impugned orders quashed and set aside; applicants discharged; both Revision Applications allowed and disposed of.

¶1

917-REVN-15-2024 (CR).doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2024

¶6

Meena Jagdish Ramani And Ors. … Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2023

¶9

Keshav Yellappa Dhotre … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶10

Mr. Sandeep C. Kekane a/w. Mr. Dhavan A. Shah and Mr. Rushikesh S. Kekane, Advocate for the Applicant in REVN/93/2023.

¶11

Mr. Meghashyam Kochrekar a/w. Mr. Kamlesh Y. Mali i/b. Meena Kshirsagar & Associates, Advocates for the Applicant in REVN/15/2024. Smt. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶12

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATED : 27^th MARCH, 2025.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

Both the Revision Applications are filed against the order passed below Exhibit-7 and Exhibit-8 in Sessions Case No. 479 of 2016 passed by learned Special Judge rejecting the discharge applications of the applicants. The offence under Sections 304(II) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicants. Both the applicants are accused of the same crime, hence I am deciding both these applications by this common order.

¶15

It is prosecution’s case that on 04.03.2015 first informant’s sister-in-

¶16

1/4

¶17

917-REVN-15-2024 (CR).doc

¶18

S.S.Kilaje

¶19

law had gone to public toilet to answer nature’s call, due to broken of toilet pot, she fell in septic tank. She died in said incident. It is alleged that the applicant Arun was Architect and he had prepared plan of said toilet and the applicant Keshav was Supervisor of said work.

¶20

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is alleged that the applicant Arun Sondulkar, was Architect and he has designed the said public toilet whereas the applicant Keshav Dhotre was the Assistant Engineer of BMC and his duty was to supervise all the work which falls in his jurisdiction including said public toilet. Learned counsel further submitted that the role of the applicant Arun Sondulkar was to prepare the plan of public toilet and hand over to BMC department and accordingly he did his work and Keshav Dhotre, Assistant Engineer has no concern with the said construction except the activities and supervising the work. There is no role of both the applicants in the said mishap. At prima facie, no case is made out against both of them but these facts are not considered by the learned Special Judge and has rejected their discharge applications, hence requested to allow both the applications.

¶21

It is contention of learned APP that applicants’ role was crucial in construction of the public toilet, as the applicant Arun Sondulkar has prepared the sketch of the said toilet and it was the duty of the Keshav

¶22

2/4

¶23

917-REVN-15-2024 (CR).doc

¶24

S.S.Kilaje

¶25

Dhotre to supervise the work of the public toilet which comes in his jurisdiction. But both were negligent in their duties and due to their negligence, the deceased has lost her life. Learned APP further submits that learned Special Judge has passed well reasoned order. To prove role of the applicants in said crime evidence is required. At prima facie stage, they cannot be discharged from the said crime, hence requested to reject the applications.

¶26

I have heard all the learned counsel. Perused impugned order. While passing the order, the learned Special Court has observed that considering the role of the applicants and considering evidence of the witnesses there is prima facie case against the applicants. At threshold they cannot be discharged for the accusations against them. In my view, admittedly the incident happened at public toilet. The applicant Arun Sondulkar, was architect and he has prepared plan of construction of the said public toilet if he had prepared the plan, he cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased or attributing his negligence to said death. The role of applicant Keshav Dhotre was to supervise the construction work of said toilet. The supervising work cannot be attributed as a negligence in the said incident as other toilet pots have not broken. But these facts are not considered by the learned Special Court. In my view, there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the applicants. Considering these

¶27

3/4

¶28

917-REVN-15-2024 (CR).doc

¶29

S.S.Kilaje

¶30

facts, I pass following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32