Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1402 (KAR)

Ravi @ Bunda Ravi v. State of Karnataka

2013-12-13

N.ANANDA

body2013
Judgment : 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused No.1') was tried along with accused 2 to 4 for offences punishable under sections 304 & 379 r/w 34 IPC and also for offences punishable under sections 39, 39A & 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short, 'the Act'). The learned trial Judge acquitted accused 2 to 4 of aforestated offences and convicted accused No.1 for an offence punishable under section 304A IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 39 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for an offence punishable under section 304A IPC. Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for an offence punishable under section 39 of the Act. 2. I have heard Sri V.N.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for accused No.1 and Sri M.Narayana Reddy, learned SPP for State. 3. The learned SPP would submit that State has not filed an appeal against acquittal of accused No.1 of offences punishable under sections 304 & 379 IPC and also for offences punishable under sections 39A & 44 of the Act. The State has also not filed an appeal against acquittal of accused 2 to 4 of offences punishable under sections 304 & 379 r/w 34 IPC and also of offences punishable under sections 39, 39A & 44 of the Act. 4. In this appeal, the following points would arise for determination:- (1) Whether prosecution has proved that on 31.03.2001, at about 10 or 10.30 p.m., accused No.1 tied binding wire around the land of CW11- Chandregowda near Kaparanakoppalu Village in Kirangur and connected binding wire to main line and deceased Venkatesha came in contact with binding wire, which was electrocuted and died, thus accused No.1 caused death of deceased by his rash and negligent acts by connecting electric power to binding wire tied around land of CW11 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304A IPC? (2) Whether in the same course of transaction as stated in point No.1, accused No.1 had dishonestly abstracted electric energy by connecting wire from main line to binding wire erected around land of CW11-Chandregowda and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 39 of the Act? (3) Whether learned trial Judge has properly appreciated evidence on record? (4) To what order?" 5. The prosecution has relied on evidence of PW1 to PW19 and relied on documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The prosecution has also relied on material objects marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5 (a Binding wire, clothes and slippers of deceased Venkatesh). 6. The contents of post-mortem examination report (marked with consent) marked as Ex.P.11 would reveal that deceased Venkatesha had suffered injuries due to electrocution and his death was due to shock as a result of injuries suffered due to electrocution. 7. The prosecution has not adduced direct evidence to prove that accused No.1 had tied binding wire around land of CW11-Chandregowda and he had connected binding wire to main line by using insulated electric wire. 8. The prosecution has relied on following circumstances:- (i) On the date of incident, accused No.1 was seen proceeding towards his land with binding wire. (ii) After the incident, accused No.1 came to place of incident and disconnected wire connected to main line. 9. The evidence of prosecution witnesses does not reveal that accused No.1 had fixed binding wire around the land of CW11-Chandregowda and for the reasons not apparent on record, prosecution has not examined CW11 or any person of his family. 10. The prosecution has relied on evidence of PW5- Nagaraju, who has deposed; before incident, accused No.1 along with other accused were proceeding on land and PW5 had advised accused No.1 not to fix binding wire and connect the same to main electric line, lest it would cause injuries to persons, who accidentally come in contact with electrocuted binding wire; accused No.1 did not heed to advice of PW5. 11. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence of PW5, has acquitted accused nos.2 to 4. Therefore, evidence of PW5 cannot be relied upon to convict accused No.1. Even otherwise, from evidence of PW5, it is not possible to draw an inference that accused No.1 had fixed binding wire around land of CW11. 12. Therefore, evidence of PW5 cannot be relied upon to convict accused No.1. Even otherwise, from evidence of PW5, it is not possible to draw an inference that accused No.1 had fixed binding wire around land of CW11. 12. The next circumstance is:- when accused No.1 was secured to the place of incident, he disconnected electric insulated wire connected from main line. Incidentally, it is necessary to state that electric pole from where electricity was abstracted was located near the pump house of one Hanumegowda (not examined before court below). It is true that witnesses have consistently deposed that accused No.1 disconnected insulated wire connected to main line. 13. From this evidence, two inferences are possible:- (i) Accused No.1 had supplied electric power to binding wire by connecting binding wire to main line through insulated wire. (ii) Accused No.1 at the instance of villagers had disconnected electric power by removing insulated wire connected to main line in order to prevent further calamities. 14. The law is fairly well settled that when two views are possible on the basis of evidence adduced by prosecution, the view which is favourable to accused has to be accepted. 15. The prosecution has not examined either a lineman or an electric inspector to prove that there was abstraction of electrical energy. The prosecution has not proved that insulated wire was used for supply of electric power to binding electric wire from main line. This was necessary to prove abstraction of electric power. It was necessary to prove that it was possible to abstract electric energy by connecting binding wire to main line through insulated wire. 16. Incidentally, it is necessary to state that accused No.1 is alleged to have drawn insulated wire from main line through paddy fields and to connect the same to binding wire. 17. On re-appreciation of evidence, I find that prosecution has failed to prove that on 31.03.2001, at about 10 or 10.30 p.m., accused No.1 had fixed binding wire around the land of CW11-Chandregowda and had connected binding wire to main line situate near pump house of one Hanumegowda through insulated wire and electrocuted binding wire and thereby accused No.1 caused death of Venkatesh by his rash and negligent acts. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 had fixed binding wire around the land of CW11-Chandregowda. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 had fixed binding wire around the land of CW11-Chandregowda. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused had electrocuted binding wire by connecting the same to main line near the pump house of CW11. 18. The learned trial Judge without proper appreciation of evidence has held accused No.1 guilty of aforestated offences. The learned trial Judge has failed to notice that there was no direct evidence to connect accused No.1 to hold accused No.1 guilty of aforestated offences. The learned trial Judge has failed to notice that prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence and prosecution has not adduced cogent and consistent evidence to prove each link in the chain of circumstances. Therefore, impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 19. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside. Accused No.1 is acquitted of an offence punishable under section 304A IPC and also of an offence punishable under section 39 of the Act. The bail bond executed by accused No.1 stands cancelled. If accused No.1 has deposited fine amount, the same shall be refunded to him.