Karnataka HC Upholds Conviction After Cousin’s 8-Year-Old Dies Of Electric Shock, Cuts Jail To Court Rising And Directs ₹3.5 Lakh Compensation

Honnappa was constructing a house and allegedly used an unsafe electrical arrangement to operate a water pump.

The pump and connected wiring fell into a water-filled barrel, electrocuting Ningayya’s approximately eight-year-old son, who later died.

The trial court convicted Honnappa under Sections 285, 287 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposed imprisonment and fines.

On appeal, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence for Section 304A was reduced to one year’s simple imprisonment.

In revision, Honnappa and the deceased child’s father jointly sought to compromise the matter; they were cousins and had settled their dispute

The Court considered Sections 285, 287 and 304A IPC, concerning negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter, negligent conduct with respect to machinery, and causing death by negligence, respectively.

It treated the offences as non-compoundable and declined to permit a compromise that would effectively set aside the convictions for a death caused by negligence.

In exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, the Court stated that its review was limited and focused on whether the sentence required modification.

It also relied on Section 357 CrPC to direct payment of compensation from the fine to the deceased child’s father.

The Court rejected the compromise as a basis for acquittal because the offences were non-compoundable and the incident had resulted in the death of a child; it also found no revisional ground to disturb the concurrent findings of guilt under Sections 304A and 287 IPC.

However, when considering sentence, it took account of the parties’ close family relationship, their willingness to settle, and the absence of an intention to cause the death.

It considered that a reduction in imprisonment, coupled with substantially enhanced fines and compensation, was appropriate.

The convictions under Sections 285, 287 and 304A IPC were confirmed.

For the offences under Sections 304A and 287, the Court replaced the appellate court’s custodial sentences with simple imprisonment until the rising of the Court and imposed additional fines of ₹3,00,000 and ₹50,000, respectively; the sentences were to run concurrently.

It directed that ₹3,50,000 be paid to Ningayya as compensation under Section 357 CrPC, and required Honnappa to appear before the trial court to receive sentence and pay the remaining ₹6,000 in previously imposed fines.

Failure to pay the enhanced fines would restore the sentence imposed by the appellate court.