6-REVN-89-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2026 Suresh Sukumar Bargale ...Applicant/s Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Hadapsasar Police Station Pune and anr. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Hrishikesh Ghorpade along with Mr. Siddharth N. Sutaria and Mr. Anup Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this revision application is to the impugned order dated 20th January 2026 passed below Exhibit-26 by Additional Sessions Judge-14, Pune, whereby the learned Judge rejected the discharge application filed by the applicant. 2. It is prosecution's case that the applicant was working as Senior Engineer in the Execution Department of SJ Contractors Private Limited and was supervising the construction of a canteen building for SEZ Biotech Services at Manjari, Pune. On 3rd September 2019, under the supervision of the applicant, an under-construction slab was cast. Thereafter, the said slab collapsed. It is alleged that due to the negligence SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.12 16:59:38 +0530 6-REVN-89-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam of the applicant, the said slab was wrongly and excessively cast, and one labourer died due to the collapse of the slab. The applicant has been charged under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The statement of witnesses shows that after casting the slab, the deceased was inspecting the slab for cracks when the incident occurred. At the time of the incident the applicant was not present. At the most, the charge against the applicant could be under Section 304-A of the IPC. However, these facts were not considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has rejected the discharge application of the applicant, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP that as per directions of the applicant, the said slab was cast. The applicant had knowledge that if the slab was not properly cast, it would cause harm to the labourers or any other person, hence, the applicant had knowledge about the incident. Learned Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it, and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under : 6-REVN-89-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.— Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. This Section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. From the record and statements of witnesses, it appears that as per the instructions of the applicant, the slab was cast by the labourers. The statements of some labourers are recorded by the police. In the said statements, they have stated that after casting the slab, the incident occurred at 8:00 pm. They have further stated that the slab may have been cast more heavily on one side and due to that excess weight, it may have collapsed. 6. From the above, it cannot be said that the applicant had knowledge that such an incident would occur. At the most, the role of the applicant can be attributed to causing harm or death by a negligent act, which falls under Section 304-A of the IPC. It cannot be said that the applicant can be held guilty under Section 304 of the IPC. However, the applicant can be charged under Section 304-A of the IPC and tried 6-REVN-89-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam accordingly, and his guilt shall be determined as per the evidence led by the prosecution. 7. In view of above, I pass following order: O R D E R a) The application is partly allowed. b) The applicant is discharged from the charge under Section 304 (II) of the IPC. c) The applicant shall be charged under Section 304-A of the IPC. d) The matter be tried by the competent court. The revision application is disposed of in above terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)