JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.-These two appeals arise out of the same Sessions case and therefore they are disposed of by this common Judgment, while Criminal Appeal No. 721/2006 has been filed on behalf of accused No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 709/2006 has been filed on behalf of accused Nos. 4 and 5, being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14.03.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Davanagere in SC No. 107/2003, convicting the appellants for the offences under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. 2. Parties in this Judgment would be referred to according to their ranking before the trial Court. 3. Accused No. 1 had taken a contract from Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as 'KPTCL' for short) for erection of electrical connection in Kukkawada range of the said department. On 26.05.2002, being a Sunday, the department employees were on leave. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No. 1 had entrusted the work to accused No. 2 for doing such work on the current lines without taking permission from the KPTCL. While so working, though it was necessary to take care that the current flow in the place where the work was going on and the same ought to have been supervised, by negligently allowing the current to flow on the said line, while workers were still working, one worker by name Palanaik who was on the job got electrocuted and died instantaneously, thereby all the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were charge sheeted for having committed offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Accused persons were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate. As the offence was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, matter was committed to the Sessions Court by the learned Magistrate. 4. During the trial, the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge has examined in all 20 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 20. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However by the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting accused Nos. 4. During the trial, the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge has examined in all 20 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 20. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However by the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting accused Nos. 2 and 3, found accused No. 1, 4 and 5 guilty of the offences for which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them as aforestated. It is this Judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed which has been challenged by the appellants in these two appeals. 5. The prosecution in this case commenced with filing of the complaint by PW. 19 as per Ex.P16 before the Hadadi police Station, Shimoga. It is stated in the complaint that, the electrocution has happened at Kukkawada area on 26.05.2002, while the contractor was executing his work. It is stated in the said complaint that, on 26.05.2002, when an Electrical Contractor by name M/s S.R. Electricals was executing his work, one Palanaik had died due to the electrocution. In this connection, the information was given stating that the workers of Shiva Rice Mills situated at Kariganur Cross had dragged the Gang Operated Switch (herein after referred to as GOS) negligently and that due to the said act, the current passed and the worker died. The owner of the said rice mill is one of K.S. Ratnamma wife of the Devendrappa of Kagariganur cross. The work entrusted to the contractor was to give the electrical connection for drinking water project at Kariganur Station and that current was passing from Thyavanige distribution centre towards Kagariganur. On 26.05.1992, the electrical contractor was to do the said work and for that G.O.S near the rice mill was to be kept open and the contractor had kept one person to lay a watch on the said GOS. However, due to negligence of the aforesaid workers of the Rice Mills, the incident happened. On the basis of the aforestated complaint, the Hadadi police registered the case in Crime No. 56/2002 on 27.05.2002 for the offence under Section 304Part II of IPC and FIR as per Ex.P11 was issued. The police thereafter conducted the investigation and the charge sheet came to be filed by PW. 15-Sri. L.K. Ramesh-Sub-Inspector of Police of Hadadi police Station. 6. Out of twenty witnesses examined, PWs. The police thereafter conducted the investigation and the charge sheet came to be filed by PW. 15-Sri. L.K. Ramesh-Sub-Inspector of Police of Hadadi police Station. 6. Out of twenty witnesses examined, PWs. 1, 2, 11 to 13, 17 and 18 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.3, 5, 6, 8 10, 15, 16 and 20 are the witnesses who have not spoken anything about the incident and therefore their evidence is only of formal nature. The defence counsel have not cross-examined these witnesses as there were no incriminating circumstances in their evidence. 7. PW.4-Tippesh Naik has stated before the Court that, accused No. 1 was carrying on the Electrical Contractor work and the deceased-Palanaik was working under accused No. 1. On the date of the incident, himself, deceased and four to five others were working in Kukkawada. He has deposed that, he was entrusted with the work of operating G.O.S. and has further stated that, if the G.O.S. is operated by closing it, there will be flow of electricity and if it is be left open, there will be disconnection of electricity. He has further deposed that, he was looking after the said G.O.S. He has further stated that, he was sitting near the place and saw that G.O.S. is kept in a non-supply condition so that the current was not passing towards the line where the others were working. At that time, the people belonging to Rice Mill came near him and had quarreled with him and pulled the G.O.S. At that time, one Ganesh, Mahesh and the deceased Pala Naik were working on the current line and were pulling the line, since the G.O.S was pulled, Palanaik died by electrocution, though he requested the rice mill persons not to pull the G.O.S. At that time, they abused him and told him that his workers are working above. The accused No. 5 pulled the G.O.S. and the accused No. 4 threatened him saying that if they do not get current, they would not keep quiet. It is stated by PW-4 that one Ganesh came and informed that Palanaik had died. Thereafter, Palanaik was taken to the Government Hospital at Davanagere, where he was declared dead. In the cross-examination of PW-4 it is suggested that the accused Nos. It is stated by PW-4 that one Ganesh came and informed that Palanaik had died. Thereafter, Palanaik was taken to the Government Hospital at Davanagere, where he was declared dead. In the cross-examination of PW-4 it is suggested that the accused Nos. 4 and 5 have not abused him, but he had denied the said suggestions. 8. PW-7 Dr. B.M. Revanna has stated that he has conducted postmortem examination of dead body of Palanaik and has further opined that the death is due to the injury sustained by electrocution. The evidence of this witness has not been challenged in the cross-examination. 9. PW-9 is Meter Reader of Kukkawada. He has stated that he was the In-charge Section Officer on the date of the incident. He has also stated that near the Kariganur Road, there was a rice mill and near the rice mill there was a G.O.S. He has stated that G.O.S. means Gang Operated Switch. When the current is required, the G.O.S. has to be operated. He has further stated that when he was in the office, he got a telephone call stating that there was no current in the Kukkawada side. He informed him that they should approach the Thyavanige station and it was informed that the line was in order. Thereafter PW-9 went near Thyavanige, the line was proper. When he went near the rice mill, it was seen that the G.O.S. was open and therefore the current was not passing towards Kukkawava side, it was about 2.00 p.m. In the meanwhile, he was informed that somebody has closed the G.O.S. and saw that the current passed towards Kukkawada side. He also came to know that the contractor was working on that day though it was a Sunday and that due to passing of current one worker of the contractor had died. PW-9 is not an eye-witness to the incident. However, it is suggested that no such incident has happened. 10. PW-14 is the Head Constable who had registered a UDR in respect of the death of deceased Palanaik and thereafter on the basis of a compliant given by PW-19, a case in Crime No. 56/2002 is registered and investigation thereafter was conducted by PW-14. 11. PW-19 is the Executive Engineer of KPTCL, Kukkawada Village which comes within his jurisdiction. 10. PW-14 is the Head Constable who had registered a UDR in respect of the death of deceased Palanaik and thereafter on the basis of a compliant given by PW-19, a case in Crime No. 56/2002 is registered and investigation thereafter was conducted by PW-14. 11. PW-19 is the Executive Engineer of KPTCL, Kukkawada Village which comes within his jurisdiction. He has stated that, accused No. 1 has been granted the contract of drawing the line from Kukkawada side and at Kukkawada there is a rice mill and also a G.O.S. open. The said point is used to connect or disconnect the electricity towards the line. It is stated by PW-19 that the owners of the rice mill had quarreled with the employee of the contractor who was watching the G.O.S. and they had forcibly closed the G.O.S. so as to obtain current for their mill. As a result of such act, the current passed through the line when the workers of the contractor were on their job of laying the line and therefore as a result, the deceased Palanaik died of electrocution. 12. In the cross-examination by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, it is suggested that the work done was a minor work and a person was kept for safety near the G.O.S. which suggestions have been admitted by PW-19. It is also admitted by PW.19 that one Thippeshi Naik was kept as a watch near the G.O.S. so that workers could safely do their work. PW-19 has admitted that PW-4 Thippeshi Naik was present near the G.O.S. watching the same. The above is the only material evidence insofar as this case is concerned. 13. Heard Sri. S.S. Koti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 721/2006, Sri. Vinayakeerthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 709/2006 and Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the State. 14. Learned counsel for the accused No. 1 submits that except being a contractor for the said work which was carried on by accused Nos. 2 and 3, accused No. 1 has not involved in the act of negligence alleged in the complaint. He submits that, no vicarious liability could be entrusted on accused No. 1 insofar as the death of the deceased is concerned. Hence, he submits that an order of conviction against accused No. 1 may be set aside. 15. Sri. 2 and 3, accused No. 1 has not involved in the act of negligence alleged in the complaint. He submits that, no vicarious liability could be entrusted on accused No. 1 insofar as the death of the deceased is concerned. Hence, he submits that an order of conviction against accused No. 1 may be set aside. 15. Sri. Vinayakeethy, learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 4 and 5 submits that, the trial Court has erroneously framed the charge for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, whereas the death has been caused by negligence. It is the case of the prosecution that, the deceased was working about 2Vo, furlongs away from the place where the G.O.S. was situated and that the person who has operated the G.O.S. has not seen the deceased working there nor there was any intention to cause his death. Under the circumstances, he submits that the charge itself has been erroneously framed in this case, while prima facie an offence under Section 304A of IPC is made. The learned counsel further submits that except PW-4, Thippeshi Naik, no other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution supporting the allegation that it is accused No. 5 who had pulled the G.O.S.. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be allowed by acquitting the accused. 16. On a careful consideration of the materials on record, more particularly the evidence of PWs-4 and 19, it is seen that except securing a electric contract, accused No. 1 had no part to play in the incident of death of the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that, accused No. 1 was personally present on the date of incident nor he had done any act of commission or act of omission insofar as the death of the deceased is concerned. On the other hand, he has taken precaution to see that a person is appointed and placed near the G.O.S. to watch the same and see that no unauthorized person pulls the same and leaves the current. PW-4 is such person who is appointed by accused No. 1. 17. Under the circumstances, no negligence can be imputed on the appellant-accused No. 1 nor there can be any vicarious liability. There is no place for vicarious liability in the criminal law. However, insofar as the part played by the accused Nos. PW-4 is such person who is appointed by accused No. 1. 17. Under the circumstances, no negligence can be imputed on the appellant-accused No. 1 nor there can be any vicarious liability. There is no place for vicarious liability in the criminal law. However, insofar as the part played by the accused Nos. 4 and 5 is concerned, it is seen that accused No. 4 is the owner of the Shiva Rice Mill. PW-4 states that both accused Nos. 4 and 5 have come near the G.O.S. and accused No. 4 threatened PW-4 that, he will not leave them if the current is stopped. Accused No. 5 is an employee of accused No. 4 and accused No. 5 has pulled the G.O.S. so that current passes in the lines. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that both accused Nos. 4 and 5 are guilty of negligent of pulling the G.O.S. which has made the current pass through the wires, as a result of which deceased Palanaik died. The act of accused Nos. 4 and 5amounts to causing death by negligence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. 18. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel Sri. Vinayakeerthy submits that, the deceased has been paid with a compensation of Rs. 1,37,500/-. Sri. S.S. Koti, learned counsel is quick to add that the said amount is paid by accused No. 1, being an employer of the deceased. It is also submitted by him that, another sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been spent by accused No. 1 at the time of the last rites of the deceased for which no account has been kept. Having regard to the fact that the accused Nos. 4 and 5 have worked in the interest of their factory due to non-availability of the current and that incident has happened about 11 years back, it is not in the interest of justice to send accused Nos. 4 and 5 to custody after lapse of such a long time. On the other hand, the deceased has lost his life due to the act of the accused and hence, the legal heirs of the deceased are required to be compensated. Sri. Vinayakeethy, learned counsel submits that accused No. 4, being the owner of the rice mill, is ready to pay suitable amount as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Crl. Sri. Vinayakeethy, learned counsel submits that accused No. 4, being the owner of the rice mill, is ready to pay suitable amount as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Crl. A. No. 721/2006 is allowed. (ii) The order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant therein is hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the offence leveled against him. (iii) His bail bond stands discharged and the fine amount if deposited shall be refunded to him. (iv) Crl. A. No. 709/2006 is partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded under Section 304 Part II IPC is hereby set aside and in its place, the appellants/accused Nos. 4 and 5 are convicted for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. (v) So far as the sentence is concerned, appellant No. 4 Devendrappa is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and accused No. 5 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default to pay the fine amount, accused Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and two months respectively. (vi) Accused No. 4 and 5 shall deposit the fine amount within one month from today including the amount already deposited, if any, failing which trial Court shall execute the default sentence. (vii) Acting under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court is directed to pay entire fine amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Palanaik immediately after the same is deposited.