Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya vs Janardhan on 11 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT: BANGALORE
Dated this the 11th day of November , 2019
:PRESENT:
Smt. Shirin J Ansari , B.A.LLB (Hons)., LL.M.
V ACMM Bangalore .
CRIMINAL CASE No.6091/2015
Complainant : State by Kamakshipalya
Police Station.
(Rep by Sr.A.P.P)
-VS-
Accused : 1. Janardhan
S/of. Rama G Nayak
aged 60 years,
No.41,3rd cross
Vrushabvathi Nagar
Kamakshipalya
Bangalore .
2.Kumar
S/of Chinnathambi
aged 60 years,
R/of.4th D cross
Vrushabvathi Nagar
Kamakshipalya
Bangalore .
3.Hanumantharaju
@ Hanumanthaiah,
S/of Basappa
aged 45 years,
R/of. No.7, 5th cross, 3rd main
2 CC.No. 6091/2015
Govindaraj nagar
Vijaynagar
Bangalore. (By Sri VV - Advocate)
(Case against Acc No.1 is Abated )
1. Date of commencement 04.01.2015
of offence
2. Date of report of offence 04.01.2015
3 Arrest of the accused The accused are on bail
4. Name of the complainant .
5. Date of recording of 03.11.2017
evidence
Date of closing of 25.09.2019
6. evidence
7. Offences complained of Secs.304(A) IPC .
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused No.2 and 3 are
found not guilty
9. Complainant by The Learned Sr.APP .
10 Accused by Sri VV Advocate
JUDGMENT
The IO of Kamakshipalya police station, Bangalore has submitted the present charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Section 304(A) of IPC.
3 CC.No. 6091/2015The gist of the prosecution case is reads as under:-
2. That the accused No.1 had under taken construction of a building at NO.41, 3rd cross, behind Thirumala Hospital, Vrushabvathi Nagar, within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya PS. The accused No1 had given contract of the said building to accused No.2 and that the accused No.2 had engaged the services of the deceased Velu , aged 42 years in order to tie the strings . That on 4.1.2015 at about 2.30 p.m when the said Velu was trying to lift the iron rod in order to tie the strings, the said iron rod came in direct contact with the electric wire which was passing in front of the said building and said Velu suffered electric shock and succumbed due to the alleged incident. Though the accused persons knew about the passing of the electric wire in front of the building, they had failed to provide any safety measures to the workers and without taking any care and caution, the accused have thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.304A of IPC. Hence, this complaint.4 CC.No. 6091/2015
3. Criminal law set into motion by complainant and on the basis of same, case was registered against the accused persons in crime No.008/2015 and FIR was registered for the above said offences. Later investigating officer visited the spot and drawn spot panchanama. He recorded the statement of witnesses. The accused persons appeared before the court and after completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons for the above said offence.
Towards compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., copy of the charge sheet has been supplied. Charges are framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them . The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case prosecution has cited 13 witnesses but examined 2 witnesses and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 . The incriminating evidence available against the accused has been explained to the accused No.2 and 3 , they denied the same. But did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
Heard the Sr.APP and counsel for the accused and perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. 5 CC.No. 6091/2015
5. To prove the alleged incident, though the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses, but, none of the testimony of the prosecution witness supported the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the contents of the complaint and the testimony of PW 2 with regards to the alleged incident and alleged negligence on the part of the accused.
6. Now, the points that would arise for the consideration of this court are as follows:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 had under taken construction of a building at NO.41, 3rd cross, behind Thirumala Hospital, Vrushabvathi Nagar, within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya PS. The accused No.1 had given contract of the said building to accused No.2 and that the accused No.2 had engaged the services of the deceased Velu, aged 42 years in order to tie the strings and that on 4.1.2015 at about 2.30 p.m when the said Velu was trying to lift the iron rod in order to tie the strings, the said iron rod came in direct contact with the 6 CC.No. 6091/2015 electric wire which was passing in front of the said building and said Velu suffered electric shock and succumbed due to the alleged incident. Though the accused persons knew about the passing of the electric wire in front of the building, they had failed to provide any safety measures to the workers and without taking any care and caution, the accused have thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.304A of IPC ?
2) What order ?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No-1 : In the "Negative"
Point No-2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8.Points No-1: This is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused No.1 had under taken construction of a building at NO.41, 3rd cross, behind Thirumala Hospital, Vrushabvathi Nagar, within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya PS and that accused No1 had given contract of the said building to accused No.2 and that the accused No.2 had engaged the services of the deceased Velu , aged 42 years in 7 CC.No. 6091/2015 order to tie the strings . That on 4.1.2015 at about 2.30 p.m when the said Velu was trying to lift the iron rod in order to tie the strings, the said iron rod came in direct contact with the electric wire which was passing in front of the said building and said Velu suffered electric shock and succumbed due to the alleged incident. Though the accused persons knew about the passing of the electric wire in front of the building, they had failed to provide any safety measures to the workers and without taking any care and caution, the accused have thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.304A of IPC.
9. The prosecution has contended that the death of Velu is caused due to the negligence of the accused persons.
10. On the basis of the allegation made by the prosecution this court has to evaluate whether there is any negligence on the part of the accused persons or not. The fact that said Velu succumbed to the injuries due to electrocution is not in dispute. But whether the same was due to negligent act of the accused persons has to be evaluated. The 8 CC.No. 6091/2015 prosecution has made full efforts to bring home the guilt of the accused persons to proceed for conviction. But, on careful perusal of the entire testimony of the prosecution witness , it is found that PW 2 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Pw 2 has clearly deposed before the court that she had not given any statement before the police with regard to the alleged incident.
11. The other witnesses I.e PW 1 being the Asst.Engineer has deposed formally with regards to the the official act conducted by him .
12. In the present case, the court is of the opinion that there is not even proper allegation of negligence which can be attributed to the accused persons. When the act of negligence is not established then the accused persons cannot be held to have comitted the offence under Sec304A of Indian Penal Code . Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Having considered all these facts, the above point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
9 CC.No. 6091/2015
13.POINT No.2:- In view of findings on point No.1 , I find that the accused No.2 and 3 are not guilty and in the result , I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting U/Sec 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sections 304(A) of IPC .
The bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
Accused No.2 and 3 shall execute personal bonds of Rs.10,000/- each towards compliance of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Case against accused No.1 is abated.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open court, on this the 11th day of November , 2019).
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution .10 CC.No. 6091/2015
P.W.1 - Satish P.W.2 - Velangani
2. List of the documents exhibited for the prosecution .
Ex.P.1 Report Ex.P.2 Sketch Ex.P.3 Statement Ex.P.4 Panchanama Ex.P.5 Inquest report Ex.P.6 PM report Ex.P.7 Acknowledgement
3. List of the witnesses examined for defence .
-NIL-
4. List of the Documents exhibited for defence .
-NIL-
5. List of the MOs marked in the evidence.
-NIL-
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore.
11 CC.No. 6091/2015