Chandigarh, Aug. 1 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has said that two accused in Sector-32 paying guest (PG) accommodation fire incident which claimed the lives of three girl students in February 2020, will be tried for offences of death by negligence, not culpable homicide. The HC bench of justice Virinder Aggarwal, allowed the 2021 petition from PG operator, Nitesh Bansal, who had challenged the trial court order of framing charges against him under Sections 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) that entails jail term of up to 10 years. Now, the HC has ordered that he, alongwith facility owner Gaurav Aneja, be tried under Section 304-A IPC (causing death by a rash or negligent act) that entails jail term of up to two years. Three students were killed and two injured when a fire tore through an illegal PG accommodation, owned by Aneja, who had further rented it to Bansal. They were booked under Sections 304, 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code in February in view of the widespread public outrage over the incident. Bansal had argued in HC that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the allegations disclose, at the highest, an act of negligence in maintaining the premises and omission in providing safety measures. It is the admitted case of the prosecution itself that the unfortunate occurrence was an accidental fire, allegedly originating from a laptop charger, which, according to the prosecution, was of inferior quality and had presumably been purchased from the grey market, the petitioner said, adding that there is no allegation that he had any intention to cause death or that he possessed the requisite knowledge that his acts were so imminently dangerous as to make the occurrence of death a probable consequence. The court observed that the challan submitted prima facie does disclose that the petitioner was operating the PG facility with the knowledge that his acts would cause death of occupants a likely consequence. "The allegations, at their highest, attribute negligence in maintaining the premises and ensuring compliance with the requisite safety norms," the court said. ".this court is of the considered opinion that the material collected during investigation, even if accepted at its face value, does not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, nor does it justify the framing of a charge thereunder," it held allowing the petition and ordering that both the accused would stand charged for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, along with Sections 336 and 338 read with Section 34 IPC....