JUDGMENT 1. Appellant/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment of first appellate Court on the file of IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.38/2015, dtd. 19/2/2016, dismissing the appeal and confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramadurg in CC.No.297/2013, dtd. 27/2/2015 for the offences punishable under Ss. 336 and 338 of IPC, preferred this Revision Petition. 2. Parties to Revision Petition are referred with their ranks assigned before Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 9/2/2013 at 4.00 p.m. complainant took accused, who is KEB lineman to fix the electricity meter to his house, since he has obtained permission from the KEB authority, the accused fixed the meter to the said house. When complainant asked the accused to connect wire, who in turn being unable to climb poll on account of old age, asked the complainant to climb pole for connecting wire and he will inform KEB authorities to disconnect electricity supply and on such asking of accused, complainant climbed the pole to connect electricity, at that time, he was electrocuted and fell down from the pole. Thereafter, his brother brought him to district hospital, Belagavi on account of burn injury sustained on his both eyebrow, neck, left elbow, right wrist, etc. It is further alleged by prosecution that due to negligence of accused in asking the complainant to climb pole when there being no safety measures taken has resulted in complainant sustaining burn injuries due to electrocution. On these allegations, investigation was carried out and charge sheet came to be filed. 4. Accused was secured before the trial Court through process of law and substance of accusation was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to prove accusation leveled against accused relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 10 and documents at Ex.Ps.1 to 6. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and accused has not lead any defence evidence. The trial Court after having heard arguments of both sides and on appreciation of evidence on record has convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed sentence as per order of sentence. 5. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and accused has not lead any defence evidence. The trial Court after having heard arguments of both sides and on appreciation of evidence on record has convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed sentence as per order of sentence. 5. Appellant-accused has challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before first appellate Court in Crl.A.No.38/2015. The first appellate Court by judgment dtd. 19/2/2010 has dismissed the appeal and confirmed judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. The appellant feeling aggrieved by concurrent finding of both courts below has preferred this Revision Petition contenting that both courts below have overlooked the material contradiction in FIR followed with evidence of informant and other witnesses and has proceeded to hold the accused guilty for offence alleged against him. The evidence of PW.8 doctor and wound certificate as per Ex.P.4 does not speak anything about complainant has sustained burn injuries due to electrocution. Evidence of material witnesses-PWs.1 to 5 are contrary to evidence of PW.8 and wound certificate Ex.P.4. In fact PWs. 2 to 5 are not eye witnesses to the incident, but they came to spot after the alleged incident. Hence, finding recorded by the trial Court in holding the accused guilty for the offences alleged against him are not based on any legal evidence on record. Therefore, prayed for allowing Revision Petition and to set aside judgments of both the courts below and consequently to acquit accused from accusation leveled against him. 7. Learned HCGP on notice, has appeared for respondent-State. 8. Heard the arguments of both sides. 9. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it would go to show that on 9/2/2013 at 4.00 p.m. accused was KEB lineman and he came to the house of complainant situated in his landed property to fix the electricity meter to the house of complainant. After fixing the meter, complainant asked accused to connect the meter wire to electricity pole for supply of electricity. Accused on account of old age pleaded inability to climb pole and asked complainant to climb pole to connect wire for supply of electricity and he will inform KEB authority to disconnect electricity supply. After fixing the meter, complainant asked accused to connect the meter wire to electricity pole for supply of electricity. Accused on account of old age pleaded inability to climb pole and asked complainant to climb pole to connect wire for supply of electricity and he will inform KEB authority to disconnect electricity supply. Complainant has climbed pole and while he was in the process of connecting wire got electrocuted and fell down from pole, due to which, he sustained burn injuries. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court held that due to actionable negligence of accused in asking the complainant to climb pole to connect wire for supply of electricity is negligence act and the same resulted in complainant sustaining burn injuries due to electrocution. PW.1 is the complainant and filed complaint as per Ex.P.1. He has deposed to the effect that accused was lineman and came to his house for installing electricity meter, further after fixing the meter he requested the accused to give wire connection for supply of electricity. Accused has asked the complainant to climb pole, since he is unable to climb pole due to old age and he will get disconnected the supply of electricity by informing to KEB office. While PW.1 was in the process of connecting wire to electricity pole, complainant was electrocuted and fell down, due to which he sustained injuries. 10. PWs. 2 and 3 are brothers of complainant, PW.2 was working in agricultural land and PW.3 was in the house when the alleged incident took place. PW.4-wife of complainant and PW.5 is father in law of PW.1 working in agricultural land and their evidence would go to show that they were not present when accused was alleged to have asked the complainant to climb pole, since he is unable to climb pole due to old age and on assurance of accused that he will inform KEB authorities to disconnect the power supply and due to inaction and negligence of accused, complainant while in the process of connecting wire to pole for getting electricity supply was electrocuted and sustained burn injuries. Therefore, above referred evidence on alleged negligence of accused is based on disclosure of the same by injured complainant. 11. Therefore, above referred evidence on alleged negligence of accused is based on disclosure of the same by injured complainant. 11. The evidence on record would only go to show that accused was lineman and there is no any acceptable evidence to show that he was deputed to the house of complainant for installing electricity meter and it was duty of accused to give electricity connection and to install electricity meter to the house of complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it was 2nd Saturday holiday on 9/2/2013 and office of KEB would be closed. Therefore, there is no question of accused connecting electricity meter wire to electricity connection to pole for regulating electricity supply in the house of complainant. 12. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued that electricity service is essential service and minimum staffs will be working in the office to attend regularization of electricity supply. The accused has not denied that he was lineman working in KEB. Therefore, there is a reason to believe that accused was entrusted with the work of installing electricity meter to the house of complainant and connect to the same for supply of electricity. 13. The prosecution alleges that complainant was electrocuted while he was in the process of connecting the electricity meter wire to connect pole for getting electricity supply to his house, sustained grievous injuries. The prosecution, in order to attract penal provisions in terms of Ss. 336 and 338 of IPC must necessarily prove the negligent act of accused in endangering life or safety of others and on account of which caused grievous hurt by such act. The evidence of PW.8-doctor and wound certificate-Ex.P.4 would go to show that complainant has sustained two injuries 6X6 c.m. deep injury on back region and abrasion on the left thigh. PW.8 is of the opinion that injury No.1 is grievous injury, but the same is not supported by any x-ray report or radiology report to hold that grievous injury suffered by complainant falls in any one of the category under Sec. 320 of IPC. 14. PW.8 is of the opinion that injury No.1 is grievous injury, but the same is not supported by any x-ray report or radiology report to hold that grievous injury suffered by complainant falls in any one of the category under Sec. 320 of IPC. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in State V/s Sheenappa Gowda and others, reported in (2011) 4 KCCR 2759 , wherein it has been observed and held that non-production of x-ray for confirmation of fracture opinioned by doctor in clinical medical examination held that prosecution has failed to prove that injured has sustained grievous injury. 15. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Ayub Khan and another V/s. State of Karnataka by old town police station, reported in 2011 Cr.R.636 (Kant), wherein also it has been held that in the absence of x-ray and their production before Court, offence of grievous hurt cannot be said to have been proved. In the present case also opinion of PW.8 that complainant suffered grievous injury on his back is not supported by x-ray report or radiology report. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that complainant-P.W.1 has suffered grievous injury as claimed by PW.8. It is also pertinent to note that evidence of PW.8 and wound certificate-Ex.P.4 does not speak about complainantPW.1 has suffered burn injuries due to electrocution. Therefore, claim of prosecution that complainant while he was in the process of connecting wire, got electrocuted and suffered burn injuries has not been proved by medical evidence of PW.8 and wound certificate-Ex.P.4. Therefore, it will have to be held that prosecution has failed to prove that complainant-PW.1 has suffered burn injuries due to electrocution. 16. It is true that in view of oral evidence of PW.8 doctor, who has treated injured complainant-Ex.P.4 at the most would speak about complainant having sustained injuries on 9/2/2013 when he was examined at 4.30 p.m. Complaint-P.W.1 suffered simple injuries, which cannot be connected with the alleged negligence of accused in causing injuries to complainant. 16. It is true that in view of oral evidence of PW.8 doctor, who has treated injured complainant-Ex.P.4 at the most would speak about complainant having sustained injuries on 9/2/2013 when he was examined at 4.30 p.m. Complaint-P.W.1 suffered simple injuries, which cannot be connected with the alleged negligence of accused in causing injuries to complainant. The prosecution first of all must prove that accused was entrusted with job of installing electric meter to the house of complainant and secondly, he was authorized to connect electricity supply from electrical pole to electricity meter installed to the house of complainant and lastly, alleged negligence of accused asking the complainant to climb electricity pole to connect wire to pole was electrocuted and sustained injuries. PW.10-investigating officer has admitted in his cross examination that he has not collected any documents from KEB authorities to get confirmation that 9/2/2013 being 2nd Saturday was holiday and accused was deputed for installing electricity meter to the house of complainant. PW.10 further admits that he has not obtained any certificate from KEB authorities to show that accused was deputed to install electricity meter to the house of complainant. However, PW.10 claims that KPTCL authorities stated that they are not going to give any such documents. The said statement of PW.10 cannot be legally sustained and investigating officer has every power to collect necessary documents from the concerned authority during the course of investigation. When PW.10 was further confronted that there was no difficulty to collect the said information, witness has replied that he has not collected. It is suggest to PW.10 in the cross examination that complainant got injuries while getting unauthorized connection to his meter and the same has been denied by witness. Other than the statement of PW.1 on the alleged negligence of accused in asking the complainant to climb pole, since he is unable to climb pole on account of old age, there is absolutely no evidence on record to substantiate alleged negligence on the part of accused. The Courts below have proceeded on the statement of PW.1 and complainant sustained injuries as per evidence of PW.8 and wound certificate Ex.P-4 held that accused was guilty of offences punishable under Ss. 336 and 338 of IPC. The Courts below have proceeded on the statement of PW.1 and complainant sustained injuries as per evidence of PW.8 and wound certificate Ex.P-4 held that accused was guilty of offences punishable under Ss. 336 and 338 of IPC. However, both courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 of their presence at the place of incident to speak on the alleged negligence of accused. 17. The fact that complainant sustained burn injuries is not supported by evidence of PW.8 and wound certificate Ex.P.4. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt that complainant sustained any burn injuries due to actionable negligence of accused in asking the complainant to climb pole and benefit of such doubt shall have to be extended to accused. Therefore, judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the first appellate Court cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by appellant-accused is hereby allowed. Judgment of IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.38/2015, dtd. 19/2/2016 and order of sentence passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurg in CC.No.297/2013, dtd. 27/2/2015 are set aside and accused is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment.