The Bombay High Court has clarified that the failure of a vehicle owner to ensure mandatory safety equipment, such as fire extinguishers, constitutes criminal negligence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code when it results in death. This ruling reinforces that statutory compliance is not a mere formality but a legal duty whose breach can attract criminal liability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Premraj @ Baba Baburao Daware, is the owner of BABA Travels and the bus MH-31-CQ-2779 involved in a fatal fire incident on 29.05.2014. Three passengers died and 12 - 13 others sustained injuries when the bus caught fire en route from Malkapur to Nagpur. The charge sheet was filed against him under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the allegation that he failed to maintain the bus in a safe condition.
Procedural History
- 29.05.2014: Fire incident occurs during bus journey, resulting in three deaths and multiple injuries.
- 24.06.2019: Charge sheet No.29/2019 filed by Police Station Talegaon, Wardha.
- 2019: Criminal Application No.920 of 2019 filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking quashing of the charge sheet.
- 23.01.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke rejecting the quashing petition.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the charge sheet on grounds that the incident was an accident, there was no evidence of his personal negligence, and the bus had a valid fitness certificate issued by the RTO. He argued that liability, if any, rested solely with the driver.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code applies to a vehicle owner who fails to comply with mandatory safety norms, even in the absence of direct evidence of rash driving, and whether such omission constitutes criminal negligence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel contended that:
- The fire’s origin was unidentified and not attributable to the owner’s conduct.
- The bus had a valid fitness certificate issued by the RTO, indicating compliance with safety standards.
- Witness statements did not directly implicate the owner in any act of negligence.
- The incident was an unfortunate accident, not a criminal act, and prosecution under Section 304-A was unwarranted.
- Reliance was placed on Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan to argue that mere ownership does not equate to criminal liability.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that:
- The owner of a commercial vehicle has a statutory duty under the Motor Vehicles Act to maintain safety equipment, including two fire extinguishers - one in the driver’s cabin and one at the rear.
- Multiple passenger statements confirmed the absence of fire extinguishers on the bus.
- The RTO’s statement confirmed the requirement but did not verify compliance during inspection.
- The failure to install safety equipment, despite legal obligation, amounted to criminal negligence under Section 304-A.
- Reliance was placed on Yograj s/o Atmaram Rahangdale v. State of Maharashtra to establish that omission to fulfill statutory duties can constitute a rash or negligent act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 304-A IPC, distinguishing it from Section 304 IPC. While Section 304 requires intention or knowledge of likelihood of death, Section 304-A applies to deaths caused by rash or negligent acts that do not amount to culpable homicide. The Court emphasized that negligence is not an absolute term but a relative one, determined by the circumstances of each case.
"Negligence means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do."
The Court held that the owner of a commercial vehicle bears a heightened duty of care due to the public nature of the service. The absence of fire extinguishers, despite clear RTO requirements, was not a mere administrative lapse but a failure to fulfill a legal obligation that directly contributed to the loss of life. The RTO’s issuance of a fitness certificate without verifying compliance did not absolve the owner of responsibility.
The Court applied the Bhajan Lal test for quashing and found that the allegations, if accepted at face value, disclosed a prima facie case of criminal negligence. The failure to install fire extinguishers, coupled with the known risk of fire in AC buses, created a foreseeable danger. The Court noted that the owner’s duty extended beyond mere ownership - it required active verification of safety compliance.
The Court further cited Halsbury’s Laws of England to affirm that negligence arises when a duty is owed, breached, and results in foreseeable harm. Here, the duty was statutory, the breach was proven by witness testimony, and the harm was catastrophic.
The Verdict
The applicant’s petition was rejected. The Court held that Section 304-A IPC applies to vehicle owners who fail to comply with mandatory safety norms, and such omission constitutes criminal negligence when it results in death. The charge sheet stands, and the case shall proceed to trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Owner Liability Is Not Derivative
- Practitioners must now argue that vehicle owners are independently liable under Section 304-A for failing to ensure statutory safety compliance, regardless of whether the driver is charged.
- Mere delegation of operational control does not absolve the owner of legal responsibility.
- Fitness certificates issued by authorities do not create a shield against criminal liability if safety norms are unmet.
Safety Compliance Is a Legal Duty, Not a Formality
- Fire extinguishers, first aid kits, and emergency exits are not optional equipment - they are statutory obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- In commercial transport cases, failure to maintain such equipment will be treated as a rash or negligent act under Section 304-A.
- Evidence of non-compliance, even if circumstantial (e.g., witness testimony), is sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of Verification Rests on the Owner
- The owner cannot rely on third-party inspections (e.g., RTO) to discharge their duty.
- Practitioners should advise clients to maintain internal audit logs of safety equipment checks.
- In future cases, courts may expect documentary proof of periodic safety audits to rebut allegations of negligence.
