Is Allu Arjun responsible for a death in the Hyderabad stampede?

Last week,  the Hyderabad police arrested actor Allu Arjun, for a woman’s death during a stampede at a screening of the movie Pushpa 2. The actor was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt under Section 118(1) of the BNS. 

The Telangana High Court granted him interim bail. Arjun is now under legal obligation to follow the bail conditions that the court imposed on him. 

In this Weekly, we discuss the charges against Arjun and  if he can be legally held responsible for causing the death of a fan in the stampede. 

What led to Allu Arjun’s arrest?

On December 4, 2024, a stampede broke out in Hyderabad’s Sandhya theatre when Arjun arrived at the screening, along with the Pushpa 2 team. The stampede led to the death of a 35-year old woman and caused her son to be seriously injured. The aggrieved family filed an FIR against Arjun claiming that his presence stirred the stampede. They claimed he is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt. The police arrested Arjun based on these charges. However, he was able to obtain interim bail from the Telangana High Court the next day. 

What is culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

According to the BNS, if an act is done with the intention and knowledge that it is likely to cause death, it is an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This can be punished with jail time between 5 years to 10 years and a fine. 

How is culpable homicide different from murder?

All murders are culpable homicides but not all culpable homicides are murders.  Culpable homicide and murder in Indian laws are closely related offences but there is a difference. Culpable homicides do not amount to murder in the following situations : 

• When death is caused by sudden provocation or by mistake or accident. For example, A strikes B with a cricket bat when B hurls abuses at A during a cricket match, causing B to die. 
• When death is caused by an act of self-defence without any prior planning. For instance, X tries to sexually assault Y in a moving bus, Y to protect herself strikes X with a pocket knife causing X to bleed to death.
• When death is caused in the course of public justice by a public servant or someone assisting a public servant. For example, P, a police officer, fires his rifle towards a cafe which is taken hostage by a group of terrorists. Q, a cafe-goer trapped inside the cafe gets hit by the bullet and dies. 
• When death is caused in a sudden fight due to the heat of passion and not as a consequence of any prior planning. Remember the scene from Welcome, where Katrina Kaif in order to break off the fight between Akshay Kumar and Shereever Vakil shoots the latter? That would be an example of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

What is the defence against the charges against Arjun?

The defence argues that there is no intention to cause death or the knowledge of likelihood of causing death in this case. As an actor, Arjun’s mere presence at the screening of his own movie cannot establish either of the elements. Moreover, his team had earlier requested for additional measures during the screening from the Additional Commissioner of Police.

Arjun has also been accused of voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt. The defence argues that this crime requires the use of dangerous weapons or means like shooting, stabbing, administering poison etc. Arjun did not commit any such act. 

What did the court say?

The case before the High Court is about the quashing or cancelling of the FIR. While the Court allowed the FIR to be investigated, it granted Arjun interim bail. The court observed that the key elements of the offences against him cannot be established and it is a fit case for granting interim bail. The Court also stated that just because he is an actor, his right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed and his mere presence at the screening cannot be grounds for prosecution.