Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 413 (MP)

Vishnu Kant Tripathi v. State Of M. P.

2017-03-27

J.P.GUPTA

body2017
ORDER : This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17/05/2016 passed in S.T. No. 428/2015 by Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Baghelan whereby against the applicant/accused person a charge has been framed for an offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution story against the applicant allegation is that on 9-4-2015 near about 12.25 P.M. deceased Nandlal was working as a Lineman to cure the default in the electric supply line of village Sejhera, which falls under the Sub Station 33/11 KV of Rampur Baghelan where applicant was working as an Operator. The deceased before going on work on the electric supply line informed and taken permission from the applicant, who issued permit in writing and close the supply of electricity power to facilitate the deceased to cure the default in the supply line of the village concerned. But the applicant without verifying or withdrawing the aforesaid permission, supplied power in the electric line where the deceased was working. Consequently, the deceased electrocuted and died and aforesaid incident was reported to the Police Station Rampur Baghelan, District-Satna, where Crime No. 600/2015 under section 304 of Indian Penal Code was registered and after completing the investigating, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Rampur Baghelan, District-Satna, who committed the case after taking cognizance to the Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Baghelan, District- Satna by impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the impugned order is bad, illegal, incorrect and improper as there is no material available on record to establish that the applicant has attributed any role or rashly or negligently acted for causing of aforesaid incident, which was purely an accidental one. In the story of prosecution the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence so alleged are completely missing. The applicant had no knowledge or bad intention thereon for the alleged unfortunate incident. There is no cogent or plausible evidence with regard to establish the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence. In the story of prosecution the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence so alleged are completely missing. The applicant had no knowledge or bad intention thereon for the alleged unfortunate incident. There is no cogent or plausible evidence with regard to establish the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that at the time of framing of the charge, it is bounded duty of the trial court to ascribe whether necessary ingredient to constitute alleged offences are satisfied or not. The trial court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out that if the facts emerging therefrom taken on their face value discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is further submitted that applicant has nothing to do with that part of the work in which the incident took place as the entire electric supply and closer work is done under the supervision and control of the regular Junior Engineer of the M.P Electricity Board. There is also regular Government Operator and Assistant Operator for the aforesaid purpose and applicant is a contract employee of the electricity contractor of the village in question, in view of the aforesaid contention, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and applicant be discharged from the alleged offence. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed all contentions of the applicant and prayed to dismiss the revision. 5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the charge-sheet and documents, in view of this Court the revision has no merit and deserve to be dismissed as it is prima facie found that deceased died on account of electrocution after supplying electricity power in the line where the deceased were working by the applicant/accused. It is also found that before going on work on electric line, requisite permit was taken by the deceased from the applicant, who was working as an Operator on the Sub Station from where the electric supply and closure of the electricity power was managed and before withdrawing the permit or verifying that the electric line work is over knowing the fact that deceased were working on the electric line, he switched "ON" supply of electricity power to the concerned line. At that time deceased were working on the electric line and number of persons were present, who have categorically stated that the deceased was working. They have not said that the deceased or other authorized person have informed to the applicant that the electric line work was over. However in regard of the concerned Sub Station in the permit book, it has been mentioned that having completed work on electric line, permit was returned through message on phone. Further endorsed that upto 12.00 O’clock supply of 3-Phase was closed and at 12.25 P.M. supply was started and there is overwriting on the figure reflecting time of supply of electricity power. In the light of the aforesaid documents, it can be said that there are two sets of evidence available in the charge-sheet. Even though in this regard law is settled that in such circumstances, charge should be framed with a view to verify the facts that which set of evidence is correct. Apart from it veracity of document is to be tested or it can be said that the document is impeachable. 6. So far this argument is concerned that in the light aforesaid allegation hardly offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code is made out as there is no necessary ingredient with regard to framing of charge punishable under section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code. Prima facie there is no merit in this argument also as for framing of the charge under section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code. It has to be seen whether the following three ingredients prima facie emerges from the material available in the charge-sheet: (1) death of a person; (2) death was caused by the act of accused; (3) Act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 7. In the present case, prima facie there is no controversy that on the date of incident i.e. 9-4-2015 death of Lineman Nandlal was taken place because the applicant started power supply in the electric line where deceased was working and the fact that deceased was working on the line was in the knowledge of the applicant even though he supplied the electric power in the concerned line. These facts and circumstances establish that the act of supplying of the power in the line was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death of the lineman but without any intention to cause death or to such bodily injury to cause death. 8. As at the stage of framing of the charge, the test of prima facie evidence available is that if there is ground for presuming that accused has committed the offence a court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists and framing of the charge justified. If on the basis of material on record a court comes to conclusion that commission of offence is probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. If court were to think that accused might have committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for the conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. At the stage of framing of charge, the probative value of material on record cannot be gone into, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage and an order of discharge would be warranted only in those cases where the court is satisfied that there is no chance of conviction of an accused and the trial would be an exercise in futility. 9. Therefore in view of the discussion, in the present case, it cannot be said that the learned lower court has committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety or any error of jurisdiction in framing of charge punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this revision is dismissed with the observation that at the time of final disposal of the learned lower will not be influenced by any observation or finding given in this order.