What the SC said in 1996

Mere act of running a plant not a criminal act

THE entire material which the prosecution relied upon before the trial court for framing the charge and to which we have made a detailed reference,in our view,cannot support such a charge (304 Part II) unless it indicates prima facie that on that fateful night when the plant was run at Bhopal,it was run by the concerned accused with the knowledge that such running of the plant was likely to cause deaths of human beings, said the ruling.

The Bench ruled that before any charge under Section 304 Part II can be framed,the material on record must at least prima facie show that the accused is guilty of culpable homicide and the act allegedly committed by him/her must amount to culpable homicide. But if the material falls short of even prima facie indicating that the accused appeared to be guilty of an offence of culpable homicide,Section 304 Part I or Part II would get out of the picture.

Justice Majumdar,speaking for the Bench,maintained: It cannot be disputed that mere act of running a plant as per the permission granted by the authorities would not be a criminal act. Even assuming that it was a defective plant and it was dealing with a very toxic and hazardous substance like MIC (methyl isocyanate),the mere act of storing such a material by the accused in tank no 610 could not even prima facie suggest that the concerned accused thereby had knowledge that they were likely to cause death of human beings.

Material on record doesnt prove accused knew death likely to be caused

The court failed to find that material relied upon by the prosecution prima facie connected the accused with any act done with the knowledge that the act by itself would cause death. In fairness to the prosecution it was not suggested,and could not be suggested,that the accused had an intention to kill any human being while operating the plant, the Bench ruled. Similarly on the material placed on record it could not be even prima facie suggested by the prosecution that any of the accused had a knowledge that by operating the plant on that fateful night,where such a dangerous and highly volatile substance like MIC was stored,they had the knowledge that by this very act they were likely to cause the death of any human being, said the Bench.

Consequently in our view,taking the entire material at face value and assuming it to represent the correct factual position in connection with the operation of the plant at Bhopal on that fateful night,it could not be said that the said material even prima facie called for framing of a charge against the concerned accused under Section 304 Part II,IPC on the specious plea that the said act of the accused amounted to culpable homicide only because the operation of the plant on that night ultimately resulted in deaths of number of human beings and cattle, the court ruled.

Further,the Court held,Suffice it to say at this stage that (based) on the entire material produced by the prosecution in support of the charge,it could not be said even prima facie that it made the accused liable to face the charge under Section 304 Part II.

It added: The accused could not be even charged for culpable homicide and consequently there would be no question of attracting Section 304 Part II against the concerned accused on such material.

Similarly,while considering the other charges being pressed by the prosecution under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the IPC,the Bench said: We have already indicated that the material pressed into service by the prosecution for framing such charges against the accused falls short of indicating that the act of running the plant on that fateful night at Bhopal,which in its turn involved storing and utilising a highly dangerous and volatile substance like MIC in their storage tank No. 610,could not even prima facie be said to have been done with the knowledge that by such act itself simple hurt or grievous hurt was likely to be caused to anyone. Consequently,on such material,even a charge under Sections 324 and 326,IPC could not have been framed against the concerned accused.

The Court similarly ruled out the applicability of Section 429 (mischief by killing or maiming cattle) and 425 (mischief) of the IPC. It is difficult to appreciate how the said provision can be pressed into service on the basis of the material which does not whisper or even prima facie indicate how by running such a plant,the accused had the knowledge that by that act alone they were likely to destroy anybodys property or cause wrongful loss or damage to any person, it said.

Rash and negligent act on part of accused

IN conclusion,the Bench held: It is true that though originally the criminal case was registered for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC,the CBI which took up the investigation thought it proper to press into service Section 304 Part II and Sections 324,326 and 429 of the IPC. Charges under these Sections have been found by us to be unsustainable on the material produced by the prosecution on record in support of these charges.

It added: In our view the prosecution on the material had made out a prima facie case against the accused for being tried under Section 304-A of the IPC. While affirming that applicability of Section 304 II was out of the picture,the Court finally held,Section 304-A on this very finding can straightaway get attracted at least prima facie.

It cannot be disputed that because of the operation of the defective plant at Bhopal on that fateful night,a highly dangerous and volatile substance like MIC got converted into a poisonous gas which snuffed out the lives of thousands of human beings and maimed thousands and killed a number of animals. And that all happened,as seen at least prima facie (by taking into account) the material led by the prosecution on record,because of a rash and negligent act on the part of the accused who were in-charge of the plant at Bhopal. Even though,therefore,these accused cannot be charged for offences under Section 304 Part II,the material led by the prosecution at least prima facie showed that the accused were guilty of rash or negligent acts not amounting to culpable homicide and by that act caused the death of a large number of persons, said the ruling.