JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.10.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Court, Sawai Madhopur whereby the revisional Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 304-A I.P.C. 2. The short facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by Bahadur on 31.7.1987 stating therein that his son Dhirendra Singh was working as helper in R.S.E.B. at Sherpur, Ramavtar and Vijay Shanker were feeling jealousy with Dhirendra Singh as he was efficient and they were bent upon to teach him a lesson. On 10.7.1987 at about 8 a.m. when Dhirendra Singh was working at Sherpur on electricity line, the line was being started by Ramavtar and other accused persons. He got the electric shock and died. 3. The contention in the complaint is that since the R.S.E.B. has not provided any lock, therefore, in order to create a sort of symbol, a wire has been affixed upon the G.O. switch so that everybody can understand that the electric line has not to be started as some electrician may be doing repair work at the electric pole but on the day of incident when Dhirendra Singh was working on the line, the present petitioner has got started the G.O. switch by Abid Ali, in spite of refusal by Abid Ali. Laddu Gurjar has also told him not to start the electric current in the line. This complaint has been sent for the investigation under Section 156(3) and after usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner and other co-accused under Section 304A Indian Penal Code Charges were framed against the accused persons. The persecution has examined four witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code After conclusion of the trial, the present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Section 304A for one years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo one months' S.I., whereas the other accused Vijay Shankar was acquitted by the trial Court. The appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 4. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo one months' S.I., whereas the other accused Vijay Shankar was acquitted by the trial Court. The appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 4. The contention of the present petitioner is that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner that he was in any way directly or indirectly connected with the starting of the electricity line. The F.I.R. has been filed after inordinate delay. The post-mortem report has not been placed on record to ascertain the cause of death of Dhirendera Singh. According to the prosecution story, electricity line has been started by Abid Ali and the present petitioner has nothing to do with the incident. 5. The evidence of the prosecution goes to show that complaint has been filed after a delay of about 20 days but only delay cannot be held fatal and the prosecution case cannot be thrown out only on this ground. 6. PW-1 Abide All and PW-3 Laddu Lal are the star witnesses of the prosecution. PW-1 Abid Ali has not supported the prosecution story. He has been declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has shut down the electricity line and it is common practice that who has shut down the electricity line, only that person will start the line and he has also admitted the fact that he has started the current in the line, but he has stated that he started line on the instructions of Ramavtar. Be that as it may be, but it was the duty of Abid Ali to start the current line after having get the fact confirmed that nobody is working on the line and the negligence on the part of Abid Ali could not be imposed on the present petitioner. 7. PW-3 Laddu Lal has stated that he and deceased were working on the line after checking of some poles, he went back and the deceased was working on some more poles and Abid Ali and Ram Kumar have stated to him that Ramavatar has instructed them to start the line and Abid Ali had stated that due to pressure of Ramavatar, he started the electric line but the line has not been started in the presence of PW-3 Laddu Lal and he cannot be termed as an eye- witnesses of the incident. Other eye-witness Ram Kumar who is said to be present with Abid All at the time of starting of the current in the line, has not been produced by the prosecution and no explanation has been given for his non-production. Laddu Lal has specifically stated that he has not seen when the line was started. No other eye-witness has been produced by the prosecution to support the case. PW-2 Bahadur Singh is the complainant but he has no personal knowledge about the incident. 8. Hence, looking at the above evidence, it can be safely inferred that the present petitioner is in any way not responsible for the death of deceased Dhirendra Singh and there is no evidence to support the contention that he has worked negligently which caused the death of deceased Dhirendra Singh. There is no evidence to support the contention that the present petitioner has acted rashly or negligently in any way. The rash act due to which accident has occurred was of Abid Ali. Admittedly, Abid Ali has started the current in the line and there is no evidence that the present petitioner has, in any way, done any overt act or omission in starting the current in the line. 9. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. It has also been stated by the prosecution witnesses that the present petitioner has specifically ordered to all the connected employees working on the electric line that line should not be started unless it has been confirmed that all the checking staff have returned back. 10. Hence, in the light of above circumstances, the conviction of the present petitioner under Section 304-A could not be sustained. 11. This revision petition is allowed and the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304A Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are cancelled.Revision allowed. *******