Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 841 (MP)

Hemraj Jain and Pannalal v. State of M. P.

2009-07-22

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rakesh Saksena, J. 1. This judgment shall govern disposal of both the above appeals, as both the appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Trial Court. 2. Appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment dated 9th December, 2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ashta District Sehore, in Sessions Trial No. 101/2000, convicting them under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Appellant Hemraj has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and appellant Pannalal has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, with default stipulation. It has further been directed that on amount of fine being deposited, an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs shall be paid to heirs of deceased as compensation. 4. In short, the prosecution case is that on 18-1-2000 appellant Hemraj was working as Lineman and appellant Pannalal was working as Line Helper in the M.P. Electricity Board and were posted at Sub Station Siddikganj. At about 2.00 p.m. Pannalal informed Dhannalal Koshta, Junior Engineer that somebody was hanging on the 11 KV line of Jasmatghati. He was dead. Dhannalal went at the spot and found that it was Babulal of Village Dharampuri. He had died of electrocution. The report of the incident was lodged by Dhannalal Koshta at Police Station, Siddikganj. Police registered a Merg and proceeded for enquiry. Dead body of Babulal was sent for post-mortem examination Dr. R.C. Gupta, vide his report (Exh. P-9) opined that the deceased had died of electrocution. It was found in the enquiry that when Pannalal had gone to repair the line, he had taken Babulal with him on a Bajaj M-80 motorcycle and had asked him to climb over the D.P. While he was severing the jumper, he received shock and died. After enquiry, police registered of offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Pannalal and after investigation filed charge-sheet against him in the Court. While recording evidence, Trial Court found that accused Hemraj Jain, Lineman, was also liable for commission of the offence. Therefore, in exercise powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he was also made accused and put up for trial. 5. During trial, Pannalal abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. Accused Hemraj also pleaded false implication. While recording evidence, Trial Court found that accused Hemraj Jain, Lineman, was also liable for commission of the offence. Therefore, in exercise powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he was also made accused and put up for trial. 5. During trial, Pannalal abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. Accused Hemraj also pleaded false implication. According to him, he had been maliciously involved in the incident by Dhannalal Koshta, Junior Engineer to whom he did not give money by recovering from the persons who ran their pumps illegally by tapping the electricity lines. He also examined two defence witnesses viz., Dinesh Kumar Sharma (D.W. 1), Jagdish Kumar Sharma (D.W. 2). 6. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses. 7. Trial Court, relying mainly on the evidence of Puran Singh (P.W. 3), Mohan Singh (P.W. 4), Mukesh (P.W. 5) and Dhannalal Koshta (P.W. 7) held both the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 8. Learned Counsel of both the appellants submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case was not reliable. Evidence of Dhannalal Koshta (P.W. 7) was inconsistent and discrepant. From his evidence it appeared that he himself was negligent and the incident occurred due to his carelessness. At the time of occurrence accused Pannalal had gone for patrolling of the line and for repairing the fault after obtaining permit and that the electricity at that time was also off for the load shedding. Somebody from the Power Station charged the line carelessly, as a result of which Babulal got electrocuted. Even if accused Pannalal would have been repairing the fault instead of Babulal, he would have died. Even if it was accepted that accused Pannalal asked the deceased to repair the jumper, it was under the belief that electric current was off. It could not be held that he knew or that it was likely to cause his death. Learned Counsel for the appellant Hemraj submitted that it was not established by the prosecution that Hemraj switched on the electric current in the line of Jasmatghati. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of Puran Singh (P.W. 3), eye-witness and Dhannalal Koshta (P.W. 7), Junior Engineer, was reliable and was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of Puran Singh (P.W. 3), eye-witness and Dhannalal Koshta (P.W. 7), Junior Engineer, was reliable and was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. According to him, Trial Court committed no error in holding the accused persons guilty and convicting them. He thus justified the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 10. I have heard Counsel of both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record carefully. 11. It is not disputed that Babulal died of electrocution when he climbed over the D.P. installed at 11 KV line at Jasmatghati. The only issue to be decided by this Court is, whether the accused persons caused the death of Babulal by their acts with the knowledge that the said acts were likely to cause his death. 12. Puran Singh (P.W. 3) deposed that since there was fault in the electric line of his Village Dharampuri, he went to the office of Electricity Board at Siddikganj. He met accused Pannalal and asked him to get the fault repaired. Pannalal then with Babulal went on a motorcycle near the D.P. (Transformer). He too went to Jasmatghati by a bus and saw that Pannalal asked Babulal to climb on the D.P. and gave his plier to him. Babulal climbed over D.P. and disconnected one jumper. While he was disconnecting another jumper, he received shock and died. Pannalal went back to the office at Siddikganj. According to him, he narrated this fact to Mohan and Mohan disclosed this fact to Deokaran (P.W. 1), the brother of Babulal. His evidence finds support from the evidence of Deokaran (P.W. 1), according to whom, Mohan told him that accused Pannalal asked Babulal to climb over D.P. and disconnect the jumper. There appears nothing in the evidence of Puran Singh (P.W. 3) to disbelieve him. Thus, the Trial Court rightly held that accused Pannalal asked Babulal to climb over D.P. 13. Dhannalal Koshta (P.W. 7) was posted as Junior Engineer at Electric Distribution Centre, Siddikganj. Pannalal was working in his office as Assistant Lineman (Helper). According to him, he had asked Pannalal to go for patrolling of the feeder of Siddikganj after taking permit. According to rules of Electricity Board, the aforesaid electric line was shut down from 6.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. for load shedding. Pannalal was working in his office as Assistant Lineman (Helper). According to him, he had asked Pannalal to go for patrolling of the feeder of Siddikganj after taking permit. According to rules of Electricity Board, the aforesaid electric line was shut down from 6.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. for load shedding. Around 1.00 -1.10 p.m., suddenly, the line was charged by accused Hemraj. When he came to know, he asked Chander Singh to inform him, who was present at the Sub Station. Chander Singh informed him that Hemraj was there. He deposed that between 1.30 to 1.45 p.m. Pannalal came to his office and informed him that Babulal of Dharampuri had died by electric current. He then went to Jasmatghati and found Babulal lying dead. According to him, before going for removing the fault of an electric line, it was necessary for the Lineman to obtain permit. Lineman was required to handover the permit to helper before sending him for repairing the fault. On the day of occurrence Hemraj was the Lineman and Pannalal was the Helper. If Hemraj sent Pannalal on work without permit, Hemraj was liable. He admitted that according to rules of Electricity Board, said electric line could not have been charged before 1.30 p.m. This rule was strictly followed. He deposed that Hemraj charged the line before time, therefore, he was liable for the incident. Dhannalal Koshta though deposed that Chander told him that accused Hemraj was at Sub Station, while the electric line was suddenly charged, but contrary to it. Chander Singh (P.W. 13) deposed that when Dhannalal asked him ahput Hemraj, he told him that he did not know about him. According to him, at about 12.00 o'clock Pannalal came to his office and informed Dhannalal that a man was lying hanged on the electric line at Jasmatghati. According to this witness, he did not know that Hemraj was on duty at Sub Station on that day. Dhannalal (P.W. 7) further deposed that when he asked Hemraj that why he charged the line, he replied that he had tested the line as there was fault in it. He had not taken permit for the said line. According to this witness, he did not know that Hemraj was on duty at Sub Station on that day. Dhannalal (P.W. 7) further deposed that when he asked Hemraj that why he charged the line, he replied that he had tested the line as there was fault in it. He had not taken permit for the said line. He, however, stated that when a line was on fault, its record was kept, but on the day of occurrence, since there was load shedding and electric current was off from 6.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., no record was kept. He admitted that accused Pannalal was on duty since morning. When he went to check the line, feeder of Siddikganj was off. He also admitted that jumpers of the line could be joined without permit at the time of load shedding because the electric line remains completely off and for that purpose no permit was required. 14. Ranjit Singh (P.W. 14), who was also working as Line Helper at Distribution Centre of Siddikganj, deposed that he did not know as to who was on duty at Sub Station on the day of occurrence. Since he was ill, he had sent his leave application at 11.00 a.m. 15. On scanning and evaluating the evidence of Dhannalal Koshta (P.W. 7), it seems that most part of his testimony was based on what other witnesses or accused told to him. His evidence stood contradicted by the evidence of Chander (P.W. 13) and Rai Singh (P.W. 15). At one place he stated that the fault of the line could be repaired without permit during the period of load shedding and at another place he stated that without permit no work could be done on the line. On the basis of his evidence, it cannot be held established beyond doubt that accused Hemraj was present at the Sub Station and it was he who charged the line. No record of fault repair or grant of permit to Line Helper was produced before the Court. Thus, in my opinion, it cannot be concluded that accused Hemraj charged the line with electric current at the time of load shedding or sent accused Pannalal for repairing the fault without permit. 16. No record of fault repair or grant of permit to Line Helper was produced before the Court. Thus, in my opinion, it cannot be concluded that accused Hemraj charged the line with electric current at the time of load shedding or sent accused Pannalal for repairing the fault without permit. 16. It seems that accused Pannalal asked Babulal to climb over D.P. to disconnect jumpers believing that the electric current was not running in the line either because the feeder was closed for repair or there was load shedding. He cannot be held to have knowledge that by repairing the electric line at that time he would suffer the shock by sudden charging of the electric line. It is not the case of the prosecution that he intended or had motive to kill Babulal. It was just by chance that when he asked Babulal to repair the fault, electric current was released in the line. Had he been there in place of Babulal, he would have been the victim. At the most, in my opinion, it could be a case of negligence on the part of the person who charged the electric line without taking due care and caution. In criminal proceeding criminally can never be presumed subject to statutory exceptions. A rash or negligent act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code unless it is proved that the offender willfully and with the knowledge did the act which resulted in the death of the victim. In the fact situation of the present case, in my opinion, it cannot be held that either of the accused had knowledge that by his act he was likely to cause the death of deceased. Since the essential ingredient 'knowledge' on the part of the accused persons is not established, they cannot be punished for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 17. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court committed error in holding accused/appellants guilty and convicting and sentencing them under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. They are acquitted. 18. A copy of this judgment be kept in the file of Criminal Appeal No. 1973/2002.