NANJUNDAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2017

Vs. 

JUDGMENT

dated 07.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at   Bengaluru   in   Criminal   Revision   Petition   No. 1048/2010 dismissing the Petition filed by the appellants herein.   The High Court confirmed the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court convicting the Appellants under Section 304(A) read with Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.05.17 16:52:13 IST Reason: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 1 sentencing them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months and penalty of Rs. 3000/­ each with default stipulation of Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

prosecution are as under: On 21.11.2003 at around 1.00p.m. Sri Uday Shankar S/o PW2 was watching TV in his house at Molakalmuru Town,   New   Police   Quarter   No.   13,   when   there   was   a sudden   sound   in   the   TV.   Noticing   the   sound,   the deceased   got   up   to   separate   the   dish   wire,   the   TV connection   wire   and   the   telephone   wire,   which   were entwined together. At this point, he felt an electric shock and his right hand was burnt and as a result of this shock he succumbed to death. Upon enquiry, during the course of investigation, it was found that Appellant No. 2, who   was   a   daily   wage   worker   working   under   the supervision   of   Appellant   no.   1,   an   employee   in   the telephone   department,   had,   while   working   on   the   DP 2 Pole, pulled the telephone wire. The telephone wire got detached and fell on the 11 KV Power line and electricity passed into the telephone wire. At this time, there was a sound in the TV at PW2’s house and as the deceased went to separate the telephone wire and cable wire, there was a short circuit and thereby, the right hand of the deceased was burnt and he died because of electrocution. It   is   further   alleged   that   the   said   incident   took   place because   of   the   negligent   act   on   the   part   of Appellant/accused No. 1 and Appellant/accused No. 2. 

circumstantial   evidence   and   the   circumstances highlighted were as follows: (1) PW1/doctor’s   report   suggesting   that   death was due to instantaneous cardiac arrest and paralysis   of   the   brain   stem   secondary   to shock.  (2) Deposition   of   PW9,10,16,   who   were   Police Staff   residing   in   the   Delhi   police   quarters, 3 stating that they also touched the telephones in   their   respective   houses   and   felt   the presence of electricity and immediately threw away the telephone instruments.  (3) Evidence of PW1/doctor, who stated that on the   same   day   he   had   examined Appellant/Accused   no.   2  for   injuries   as   he had sustained a fall from the pole and an out­ patient slip was also issued to him.  (4) Evidence   of   the   Prosecution   witnesses   that the   deceased   upon   hearing   noise   from   the television   set   first   switched   off   the   main electricity switch and then tried to separate the wires. However, there was still current in the wires. (5) Evidence of PW15, who was a higher officer in the   Department   of   Telephone   stating   that Appellant/accused   no.1   and   Appellant/ accused no. 2 were on duty and working on that day. 

that on the day of the incident, they had not attended 4 any telephone wire repair at the place of the incident and death of the deceased was not due to their carelessness and negligence.  While the Appellants/accused have not denied   the   post­mortem   report   which   attributes   the death to instantaneous cardiac arrest and paralysis of the brain stem secondary to shock, the source of the shock   is   implied   to   be   the   television   set  and   not   the Telephone connection.

respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences on record  even if we take that the Appellants/accused were in fact working on the DP pole on the day of the incident, we find it difficult to believe   that   with   the   alleged   11KV   current   running through Telephone wire, the wires did not melt; rather with   the   alleged   volts   of   current   passing   through   the telephone instruments PW9,10,16 were able to throw the 5 telephone instruments away upon contact and lived to tell the tale unharmed. Even assuming that the deceased and the Prosecution witnesses who received the shock were   wearing   slippers   at   the   time   of   contact   causing resistance in the current, 11KV is still too strong and any contact with such a high voltage current in all probability should have left any person who came in contact dead and   his/her   body   charred.   For   reference   standard domestic voltage in India is only around 220V. Hitherto, the   evidence   by   PW9,10   &   16   is   hearsay   and circumstantial and not worthy of any credence.

that Appellant no. 2 had visited him on the same day of the incident and had suffered abrasion injuries on his four fingers of both hands i.e., excluding the thumbs and abrasions   on   both   thighs.   The   record   shows   that   the deceased had also suffered abrasion injury along with burn injuries. PW1 deposed in Examination­in­chief in 6

and ring finger were burnt and wounds were shrinking.” In   light   of   these   facts   the   lower   court   came   to   the conclusion that Appellant no. 2 also suffered abrasion injuries due to electric shock just as the deceased. This conclusion however does not inspire confidence in our eyes bearing in mind that if Appellant no.2 had infact suffered an electric shock coming in contact with 11KV high tension line and sustained a fall from the pole he would   have   suffered   burn   injuries   too   such   as   the deceased   and   such   a   shock   along   with   the   fall  could potentially   be   fatal.   However,   the   record   only   shows abrasions on 4 fingers and thighs. 

submission   that   telephone   wires   were   able   to   carry current from an   11KV high tension line and did not immediately melt. It is even more difficult to assimilate that such current when passed through the television, 7 did not blast the television set and set the entire wiring of the   house   on   fire.   Be   that   as   it   may,   the   allegations against the Appellants are highly technical in nature and we find that no report or even inspection was conducted by   a   technical   expert   to   assess   the   veracity   of   the averments made by the complainants to suggest that it was due to the alleged acts of the Appellants that the incident took place.

nature,   who   stated   that   as   per   the   job   sheet,   the Appellants were working at the Police quarters; however, there   is   no   eye   witness   to   say   conclusively   that   the Appellants were infact executing the work at the place alleged.

8 which this Court proceeded on the basis that doctrine of

criminal case as its applicability in an action for injury by negligence is  well known.  In  Syad  Akbar  (supra),  this Court opined:

10.     In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping   to   conclusions   in   haste.   While   evaluating   such 9 evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. In the present case however, the conviction of the accused persons seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced. As far as the onus of proving the ingredients of an offence is concerned, in the judgment titled as  " S.L.Goswami 2 "  this Court held:­ Vs. State of M.P "5   ..... In  our view,  the   onus   of   proving  all the ingredients   of   an   offence   is   always   upon   the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence   of   the   accused   does   not   appear   to   be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or   controvert   the   essential   elements   in   the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution   to   establish   the   ingredients   of   the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the   same   as   that   which   rests   upon   the prosecution........................…" 2 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) 10 11. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that   the   Courts   below   were   not   justified   in   convicting   the Appellants of negligence under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC.

has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. Perusal of the record reveals that out of various witnesses arrayed by the prosecution, there are no eye witnesses. Any evidence brought on record is merely circumstantial in nature. We are constrained to repeat our observation that it sounds completely preposterous that a telephone wire carried 11KV current without melting on contact and when such current passed through the Television set, it did not blast and melt the wiring of the entire house. It is even more unbelievable that Appellant no. 2   came in contact with the same voltage and managed to get away with a few abrasions. The Appellants 11 therefore are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt; more so, when there is no report of a technical expert to corroborate the prosecution story.

sentence of the appellants is set aside.  The Appellants are on bail. They shall be discharged of their bail bonds. 14. As a consequence, the appeal stands allowed. ………………………….CJI. (N.V. RAMANA) ….…………………………J. (KRISHNA MURARI) ..………………………….J. (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI; MAY 17, 2022 12