Delhi Police book PG owner for culpable homicide

Delhi Police have charged Hariram Gupta, the owner of the collapsed Satya Niketan paying guest building, along with others, under three sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita after seven people died and five were injured. The case, FIR No 153/26, was registered at South Campus police station under Sections 105, 290, and 125(a). Gupta was arrested on Monday in Bhiwadi, near Gurugram. His wife, Urmila, and son, Mahesh, were also arrested in connection with the case.

The most serious charge is under Section 105, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Police are not saying the accused meant to kill the students living in Hostel Daze. Instead, the case is based on the idea that the deaths happened because of actions taken with the knowledge that they could cause death, even if there was no intention to kill.

This law covers situations in which an old, occupied building is repaired or altered in a way that makes collapse likely. If the court finds that the deaths happened because someone knew the risks, the punishment can be up to ten years in prison and a fine. If there was intent to cause death or serious injury, the penalty is life in prison or at least 5 to 10 years, plus a fine.

Investigators have described the case as one of alleged negligence and endangerment, not a planned killing. Section 290 covers situations like this. It applies to anyone who, while demolishing, repairing, or building, knowingly or carelessly fails to take enough safety measures to prevent the building or any part of it from falling and causing death.

Police say renovation was happening on the ground floor, and residents noticed work and water in the basement. This law targets exactly that kind of oversight: performing structural work without proper support, evacuation, or other safety measures while people are still inside. The punishment is lighter-up to six months in jail, a fine of up to Rs 5,000, or both. Still, it gives investigators a clear building-safety offence to focus on as they gather evidence about the work, the contractor, the workers, and who gave the orders.

Section 125 deals with rash or careless acts that put lives or safety at risk. Police have used clause (a), which applies when someone is hurt. This clause allows for up to 6 months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Rs 5,000, or both. The main section also covers cases where no one is hurt, and a more serious clause applies if someone is badly injured, with up to three years in jail and a fine of up to Rs 10,000. Five people were hurt in the collapse, some seriously. Clause (a) is used for those injuries, separate from the seven deaths.

Overall, the FIR treats the collapse as a single event with three legal outcomes: deaths that police say were a known risk from unsafe repairs, failure to secure the building during changes, and careless actions that injured survivors. The case is not just against Gupta but also against ‘others.’ This means anyone found to have directed, done, or benefited from the work, including family members now in custody, could be added.

Ownership documents are part of the investigation. The property is in Urmila’s name, while the electricity is registered in Hariram’s and Mahesh’s names. Police say Mahesh managed the building. Investigators need to show not just whose name is on the papers, but who actually controlled the building, who approved the renovation, and who let students stay while the building was being weakened. All three accused are still in custody while police look into contractors, workers, tenancy records, and the order of work that, according to them, turned the student hostel into an unsafe construction site.