Office-bearers of RWAs liable for accidents/ deaths in common swimming pool: Karnataka High Court

In a significant order, the Karnataka High Court recently held that office bearers of residents' welfare associations (RWAs) will be held liable for criminal negligence in case of accidents or death in the common swimming pool of the concerned apartment complex if such pool is left unguarded without lifeguards or relevant safety measures..The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna on August 6."If any apartment complex has a swimming pool and it is left unguarded without any lifeguard or without any safety measures taken as the case would be, those apartment complexes would be doing so at their own peril,” the single-judge said. .The Court made the observations while refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated against six office bearers of the Prestige Lakeside Habitat Home Owners Association in a case pertaining to the death of a 9-year-old who drowned in the common swimming pool of the apartment complex in Bengaluru. The Court ordered that office bearers of the association should be tried for the offence of causing death by negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It, however, quashed the charge against them under Section 304 IPC which penalises culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In December 2023, the victim had slipped into the decorative pool area attached to the common swimming pool in the building and died of electrocution.The office bearers of the residents association, Debashish Sinha, ST Suresh Babu, Santosh Maharana, Gobinda Mandal, Bikashkumar Paridh and Bhakta Charan Pradhan were booked by the police for having committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The police pointed out that the accused had been negligent by not providing any safety measures around the pool.The petitioners approached the High Court to quash the charges against them. They argued that there did not exist any intention on their part to commit such homicide, and the element of intent is a necessary requirement under Section 304 of IPC.The petitioners also argued that no apartment complex has lifeguards at swimming pools inside their premises..The Court noted that it was an admitted fact that no lifeguard had ever been appointed to guard the pool in the said building and there were no other safety measures implemented by the association members or office bearers..“Therefore, it is for the members of every apartment Association to protect the lives of infants, in the apartment complex, by bringing in such measures that would avoid any such mishap, so that innocent lives are not casually lost in the manner that has happened in the case at hand. Since it is an admitted that no life guard is even appointed, to guard the pool at appropriate hours, nor the pool itself is guarded by placing safety measures around the pool, which the petitioners were obliged to provide and take care of, they will have to come out clean in a full blown trial, not for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC, but for offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, as prima facie, I find negligence on the part of the petitioners,” the High Court said.However, it partly allowed the petition and quashed the charges against the accused under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC.Instead, the accused will face prosecution under Section 304 A of the IPC that covers offences pertaining to causing death of a person by a rash or negligent act, the Court ordered..Senior Counsel Sandesh J Chouta and advocate NS Sriraj Gowda appeared for the petitioners.Government Pleader Thejesh P appeared for the State..[Read Order]