Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 34 of 2001
Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2435 of 2000
PETITIONER:
RAM KUMAR LAHARIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2001
BENCH:
M.B.Shah, S.N.Variava
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Leave granted. Heard parties. This Appeal is against
an Order dated 29th March, 2000 by which an order framing
charges under Sections 302 and 304 of I.P.C. has been
quashed. By the impugned Order the prosecution is directed
to be proceeded only under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and
Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. Briefly stated
the facts are as follows: 2nd Respondent was possessing a
field by the side of Shankar river. 2nd Respondent used to
take water from the river to his field for irrigation
purposes. 2nd Respondent did not have electric connection.
It is claimed by the prosecution that he was taking illegal
electric connection. On 2nd May, 1999 a boy, named Santosh,
who was aged about 11 years, died due to electric shock by
coming in contact with the live wire through which 2nd
Respondent was illegally taking electric connection. Some
persons have given statements that the boy was swimming in
the river and the wire accidentally broke and fell in the
water resulting in the boy being electrocuted. On this
basis, by the impugned Order prosecution is directed to be
proceeded with only for offences under Section 304 I.P.C.
and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. However, two
eye witnesses, by name Haribai aged about 12 and Sandhya bai
aged about 7, have given statement to the police that 2nd
Respondent had called the deceased Santosh to him and had
given electric shock to the deceased on his chest and other
parts of the body with the help of other accused. The story
given by the two eye witnesses is that thereafter 2nd
Respondent and other Accused have thrown the body into the
river along with the live wire. It must be mentioned at
this stage that 5 burn injuries have been found on the dead
body. The Trial Court after considering the facts and
material framed charges under Sections 302 and 304 of I.P.C.@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. The High@@
JJJ
Court, in Criminal Revision, by the impugned Order has
proceeded to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witnesses.
The High Court has noted that, at this stage, the evidence
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
was not to be weighed by the Court. But the High Court
holds that the Court could still assess the improbability or
absurdity of the statement of the eye witnesses. The High
Court holds that the statements of the two witnesses Sandhya
bai and Hari bai were so absurd and improbable that no
prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there
was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for
offences under Section 302 or Section 304 of the I.P.C. In
our view, the High Court has committed a patent error. As
noted by the High Court itself, at this stage, it was not
open for the Court to weigh or assess the evidence. It was
not possible for the Court, at this stage, to come to a
conclusion that this evidence was absurd or inherently
improbable. Prima facie at least the 5 burn injuries
support the case that the boy was not just electrocuted by a
live wire falling in the river in which he was swimming.
They prima facie suggest direct contact with the live wire.
In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the
Order of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is set
aside. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The Trial Court
is directed to proceed with the trial on the basis of
charges framed by it.