The Kerala High Court recently delivered a significant judgment, quashing criminal proceedings against a woman contractor, Noormida, accused under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the accidental death of a sub-contractor’s worker during plumbing work.
The case arose from an unfortunate incident on June 10, 2023, when a worker named Akhil, employed by a sub-contractor, accidentally came into contact with an 11KV live electric wire while working on the rooftop of the Manalur Family Health Centre. He suffered a fatal electric shock after stretching his hand while fixing a reducing coupling and subsequently fell from the building. The plumbing work was part of a broader construction contract assigned to Noormida, the petitioner in the case.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Pauses Final Ruling in Azam Khan’s 2016 Eviction Trial Until July 3
“Criminal negligence occurs when there is gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise the required care and precaution to guard against injury…”
– Justice V.G. Arun, Kerala High Court
Justice V.G. Arun presided over the case (Crl.M.C. No. 314 of 2025) and ruled that the petitioner could not be held criminally liable under Section 304A IPC, which pertains to causing death by rash or negligent acts. The court emphasized that for criminal liability to arise under this provision, the act leading to death must be both rash or negligent and directly or proximately connected to the accused.
The judgment clarified that the petitioner had awarded the plumbing work to the second accused via sub-contract and the deceased was an employee of that sub-contractor. It was established that the contractor had no direct role in the plumbing activity at the time of the incident.
“The petitioner cannot be attributed with criminality in taking up the work, since the harm involved, due to the passing of live electric wires adjacent to the building, was not foreseeable.”
– Kerala High Court
Read Also:- Producer of Suresh Gopi’s Film Moves Kerala HC Over CBFC Certification Delay
The State's argument, presented by Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M.K., suggested that the contractor bore some responsibility for not considering the proximity of live wires and for accepting the work without sufficient precaution. However, the court rejected this, noting that there was no prior indication or obvious foreseeability of such a fatal accident.
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man... would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
– Excerpt from Judgment
Read Also:- Man Wrongly Accused of Wife’s Murder Seeks ₹5 Crore Compensation from Karnataka High Court
Given the absence of direct negligence or rashness by the petitioner, the Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed all proceedings in Crime No. 690/2023 of Anthikkad Police Station and the corresponding case C.C. No. 483/2024 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Thrissur.
The ruling sets a crucial precedent on the scope of criminal negligence under Indian law, reinforcing the necessity for foreseeability and direct connection between act and consequence in Section 304A prosecutions.
Case Title: Noormida v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 314 of 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, N.P. Asha
Public Prosecutor: Pushpalatha M.K.
