Bombay High Court
Harshwardhan S/O Mohanrao Patil vs State Of Mah. Thru P.S.O. on 30 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7499
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.91 OF 2007
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.93 OF 2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.91 OF 2007
Harshwardhan s/o Mohanrao Patil,
aged about 33 years, occupation - service,
r/o Arvi, district Wardha. (in jail). ..... Appellant.
:: V E R S U S ::
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station
Officer, Arvi PS, tahsil Arvi,
district Wardha. ..... Respondent.
Shri A.S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by
Shri Soumitra Kanetkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs.H.N.Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.93 OF 2007
1. Dnyaneshwar s/o Barkuji Dongre,
aged about 54 years, occupation-service,
r/o Awaghad Ward, Arvi, district Wardha.
2. Ramesh s/o Laxmanrao Dhokle (Dhokane),
aged about 50 years, occupation service,
r/o Jalgaon (Belora), tahsil Arvi,
.....2/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
2
district Wardha.
3. Gopal s/o Rambhau Dhabode (Dhamode),
aged about 47 years, occupation service,
r/o Ramdeobaba Ward, Arvi, district
Wardha. ..... Appellants.
:: V E R S U S ::
State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Arvi, P.S. Tahsil Arvi,
district Wardha. ..... Respondent.
Shri R.M.Daga, Counsel for the Appellants.
Mrs.H.N.Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent/State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 07/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 30/07/2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. By these appeals, the appellants (the accused
persons) have challenged judgment and order dated
14.3.2007 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge-1, Wardha (learned Judge of the trial court) in
Sessions Trial No.120/2004.
.....3/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
3
2. By the said judgment impugned in these appeals,
the accused persons are convicted for offence punishable
under Section 304-II read with Section 34 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years by each of them and to pay fine Rs.1000/- by each of
them, in default, to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as emerge from
the police papers and recorded evidence are as under:
Amol Deorao Wankhede, has lodged an oral report,
being son of the Police Patil, as his father was not well,
informing that death of Satish Dnyaneshwar Kirpane (the
deceased) took place due to electrocution on 31.3.2004 at
village Jalgaon. On the basis of the said report (Exh.68),
the crime came to be registered. During investigation, the
investigating officer has recorded statement of
.....4/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
4
Dnyaneshwar Govindrao Kirpane, the father of the
deceased, who alleged that he is having agricultural land
at village Jalgaon having facilities of well water and
electric motor-pump installed on his well. Prior to three
months of the incident, an electric wire of the electric pole
was broken and he made a complaint in register
maintained by the MSEB. Despite the written complaint
as well as the oral complaint, the accused persons, who
are employees serving in the MSEB, did not reconnect the
said connection by repairing the same. On 30.3.2004, he
had been to Nagpur and on the next day i.e. 31.3.2004 he
received a message from villagers that his son died due to
electrocution in his field. He immediately along with his
brother reached the village and came to know that his son
received electric shock and died. On the basis of the said
statement, the crime is registered and his statement is
.....5/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
5
treated as oral report which is at Exh.73 and the FIR is at
Exh.74.
4. After registration of the crime, the investigating
officer has drawn spot panchanama, seized documents
including the complaint register, recorded relevant
statements of witnesses, and after completion of the
investigation, submitted chargesheet against the accused
persons.
5. As the offence registered is exclusively triable by
the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the
Sessions Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge
framed charge vide Exh.37. The prosecution has
examined as many as 12 witnesses, which are as follows:
PW Names of Witnesses Exh.
Nos. Nos.
1 Ramchandra Lodhe, pancha on spot and 42
inquest panchanamas
.....6/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
6
2 Dasharath Ikhar, pancha on seizure of 45
complaint register
3 Devidas Kirpane 50
4 Ramesh Chavan 51
5 Dr.Vaishali Dhoke, Medical Officer 52
6 Rajendra Dahake 57
7 Pankaj Honade, Junior Engineer of the 61
MSEB
8 Amol Wankhede 67
9 Sharad Khadse, pancha on seizure 69
10 Dnyaneshwar Kirpane, the father of the 72
deceased
11 Sahadeo Waghmare, pancha on seizure 80
12 Ashok Urade, the Investigating Officer 83
6. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed
reliance on spot panchanama Exh.43, inquest panchanama
Exh.44, panchanama on seizure of register Exh.46,
relevant entries in the register Exhs.47, 75, and 76,
requisition letter to the medical officer Exh.53,
postmortem report Exh.54, Annexure-13 maintained by
the MSEB Exh.63, sketch of line Exh.65, accidental report
.....7/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
7
Exh.68, report Exh.73, FIR Exh.74, seizure memo Exh.81,
arrest panchanamas Exhs.87 to 89, letter to CA Exh.90.
7. On the basis of the oral as well as the documentary
evidence, the prosecution claimed that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
incriminating evidence is put to the accused persons in
order to obtain their explanations by recording the
statements under Sections 313 of the CrPC. The defence
of the accused persons is of total denial. After hearing
both the sides, the Judge of the trial court was pleased to
hold the accused persons guilty and sentenced them as the
aforesaid.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the finding of
learned Judge of the trial court, the present appeals are
preferred by the accused persons.
.....8/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
8
9. Appellant Harshwardhan Patil, who was accused
No.4, was serving as Junior Engineer in MSEB at the
relevant time. Whereas appellants Dnyaneshwar Dongre
(accused No.1), Ramesh Dhokle (accursed No.1), and
Gopal Dhabode (accused No.3) were serving as Linemen.
During the pendency of these appeals, appellant
Dnyaneshwar Dongre died and, therefore, the appeal is
abated as far as he is concerned.
10. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri A.S.Mardikar in
Criminal Appeal No.91/2007; learned counsel Shri
RM.Daga for the accused persons in Criminal Appeal
No.93/2007, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mrs.H.N.Prabhu for the State. They submitted that from
the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, it
nowhere reveals that the accused persons have caused the
culpable homicide amounting to murder by causing the
death of the deceased. The prosecution though examined
.....9/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
9
PW3 Devidas Kirpane, PW6 Rajendra Dahake, PW10
Dnyaneshwar Kirpane, the evidence of these witnesses
nowhere shows that the accused persons were having
knowledge as to their act that their act would cause the
death of the deceased. There is distinction between
intention and knowledge. From the evidence, it shows
that there can neither be intention nor knowledge on the
part of the accused persons that their act would result or
likely to cause death of the deceased. The offence under
Section 304 II of the IPC comes into play when death is
caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to
cause death but without any intention to cause death or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. As per
the allegations, the accused persons, who are employees of
the MSEB, had not taken cognizance of the complaint and
death of the deceased is caused. The prosecution evidence
as to the main grievance that the complaint of the
.....10/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
10
informant registered in the Complaint Register itself is
doubtful as the alleged Register was seized from the
custody of PW3 Devidas Kirpane, who is uncle of the
deceased. Bare perusal of the said Register shows that
Exh.47 the entry dated 24.1.2004 appears to be
interpolated after the alleged incident. Exhs.75 and 76
dated 2.2.2004 and 16.2.2004 show that earthing wire in
the field of Dnyaneshwar got broken and there is current
in the said wire. However, the evidence of Junior
Engineer PW7 Pankaj Honade shows that the incident
occurred due to clash of guarding wire attached to the
PVC and Pole. Thus, there is no evidence that due to
breaking of earthing wire the alleged incident has taken
place. The only allegation against the accused persons is
that cognizance of the complaint was not taken and,
therefore, the alleged incident has occurred. There was no
intention or knowledge to cause the death and, therefore,
.....11/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
11
at the most, it would be dereliction in duty. Thus, the
offence against the accused persons under section 304-II is
not made out. As far as death due to negligence is
concerned, there is no specific allegation that it was the
accused persons due to whose negligence the alleged
incident has taken place. The Executive Engineer is not
examined to ascertain the exact cause of the incident. In
fact, the accident has not taken place due to breaking of
neutral wire, but it was taken place due to contact of
second phase to PVC guarding wire. There is no evidence
that either neutral or earthing wire was broken. As the
prosecution failed to establish the charge, the accused
persons deserve to be acquitted.
11. Learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga endorsed the same
contentions as advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the
accused.
.....12/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
12
12. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State strongly opposed the said contentions on the
ground that the evidence of PW3 Devidas Kirpane, PW6
Rajendra Dahake, PW10 Dnyaneshwar Kirpane shows that
despite of the complaint by the father of the deceased, no
action was taken by the accused persons, which resulted
into the alleged incident and death of the deceased is
caused. As the accused persons are employees of the
MSEB, they had not taken cognizance of the said
complaint by the father of the deceased and the document
i.e. Complaint Register and entries therein at Exhs.47, 75,
and 76 sufficiently show involvement of the accused
persons in ignoring the complaint and not taking action
appropriately, which resulted into the death of the
deceased and, therefore, the appeals deserve to be
dismissed.
.....13/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
13
13. Having heard both the sides, question arises for
consideration is, whether the evidence on record is
sufficient to hold that the accused persons have caused
homicidal death of the deceased which does not
amounting to murder.
14. To prove the charge against the accused persons,
the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW10
Dnyaneshwar Kirpane, the father of the deceased, who
lodged the oral report against the accused persons.
15. As per the evidence of PW10 Dnyaneshwar Kirpane,
he is an agriculturist having irrigated land and having well
in it. The motor pump is installed in his well. Prior to
three months of the incident, he made a complaint that an
electric wire of an electric pole was broken and he made a
complaint in the Register maintained by the MSEB, which
was kept by officials of the MSEB at the Flour Mill of
.....14/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
14
Sardar Khan Pathan. On the next day of breaking of the
wire, he made the complaint. The officials of the MSEB
did not reconnect the said wire. At the relevant time,
accused Nos.1 to 3 were working as linemen and accused
No.4 was working as Junior Engineer. He made oral
complaints also on various occasions. As the accused
persons have not taken any action to repair the said wire,
the alleged incident has taken place on 31.3.2004 and
caused the death of his son.
16. To corroborate the version of PW10 Dnyaneshwar
Kirpane, the prosecution has examined PW3 Devidas
Kirpane, who is uncle of the deceased. As per his
evidence, his brother (the father of the deceased) has
made complaint in the Complaint Register. On 2.4.2004,
he had brought the said Complaint Register from the Floor
Mill of Sardar Khan Pathan. He himself handed over the
.....15/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
15
said Complaint Register to the police and the police seized
the same by drawing seizure panchanama Exh.46.
17. PW4 Ramesh Chavan, is the another villager, who
has also deposed that there was well and electric pump in
the field of Dnyaneshwar Kirpane and the alleged incident
has taken on 31.12.2004 and the death of the deceased
was caused due to electrocution. His evidence further
shows that prior to three months of the incident,
Dnyaneshwar told him that the electric wire of the electric
line installed is broken and he witnessed on the day of the
incident that the electric wire was in a broken condition.
18. PW6 Rajendra Dahake, is the another villager, who
has also corroborated the version of the complainant and
tested that there is a well and electric motor pump in the
field of Dnyaneshwar Kirpane. Prior to three months of
the incident, electric wire installed to electric pole was cut
.....16/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
16
due to heavy wind. Dnyaneshwar Kirpane made a
complaint in the Complaint Register kept in the shop of
Sardar Khan Pathan and Dnyaneshwar had disclosed to
him about making of such complaint. The death of the
deceased was caused due to electrocution.
19. During the cross examination of PW10
Dnyaneshwar Kirpane, it came on record that he has no
personal knowledge about the incident. He has not stated
in his report that the Complaint Register was kept at the
shop of Sardar Khan Pathan. He admitted that the
Complaint Book was at his house for two days.
On the basis of this admission, it is submitted by
learned Senior Counsel for the accused that bare perusal
of the complaint, entry which is at Exh.47 in the
Complaint Register, apparently shows that it was inserted
subsequently.
.....17/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
17
20. The cross examination of PW3 Devidas Kirpane
shows that he has taken the said Complaint Register from
person who was working at the Floor Mill and, thereafter,
kept in his house. The omission to the extent that he has
not stated in his statement that his brother disclosed to
him that he made complaint in the Complaint Register is
not stated while recording his statement. His evidence
shows that till seizure of the Complaint Register it was in
his possession.
21. The evidence of PW4 Ramesh Chavan, as far as
disclosure by Dnyaneshwar to him regarding the
complaint, is omission which is proved by the defence
during the cross examination of the investigating officer.
22. Coming to the evidence of PW6 Rajendra Dahake,
who has in his cross examination stated that he did not
make a complaint about cutting of wire to the MSEB. He
.....18/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
18
admitted that the electric wire was tied to the electric
pole.
23. Besides the evidence of these witnesses, the
evidence of PW1 Ramchandra Lodhe shows that he acted
as a pancha on spot panchanama. He deposed that he and
the police saw the position of the electric pole situated in
the said field. There is well in the said field having
electric motor pump. There are three electric poles in the
field of Kirpane. One electric pole is near the well. The
neutral wire attached to the electric pole which was
connected after 3rd electric pole was broken. 2 nd and 3rd
electric wires of 3rd pole were touching to the guarding of
the said electric wires. The plastic cover of the guarding
was damaged to some extent. The neutral wire broken
was tied to the said electric wire by thin wire. His cross
examination shows that the Complaint Register of MSEB
was kept in the shop of Sardar Khan Pathan. The police
.....19/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
19
had not verified whether the motor pump was in working
condition or not. Before stopping the electric supply, the
electric motor pump was in a working condition. The
electric wires affixed to the electric pole were at a distance
of 20 feet from the ground. The police did not enquire as
to who tied the said neutral wire to the electric wire at
that time.
24. Recital of the spot panchanama shows that neutral
wire was broken and it was wrapped around the electric
pole. It further shows that broken wire was tied by the
another wire on the pole.
25. PW2 Dashrath Ikhar, is the another pancha on
seizure of the Complaint Register of the MSEB. As per his
evidence, the police seized the Complaint Register of
MSEB from PW3 Devidas Kirpane by drawing seizure
panchanama. The cross examination PW2 Dashrath Ikhar
.....20/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
20
shows that PW3 Devidas Kirpane is paternal uncle of the
deceased. His cross examination further shows that he did
not enquire with PW3 Devidas Kirpane from how many
days the same Complaint Register was kept at the Floor
Mill.
26. PW9 Sharad Khadse and PW11 Sahadeo Waghmare
are formal witnesses who have not supported the
prosecution case.
27. PW8 Amol Wankhede, the son of the Police Patil,
whose role is to the extent that he informed the incident to
the police as his father was unwell.
28. Junior Engineer PW7 Pankaj Honade, was serving
at Arvi. As per his evidence, on 31.3.2004 linemen Gopal
Dhabode came to his office and reported the incident that
one person died due to electrocution in the filed of one
Kirpane of Jalgaon. He stated that he received a
.....21/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
21
telephonic call from the Executive Engineer informing him
about the incident. He visited the spot and observed that
there was three phase and four wire lines in that field.
The said dead body was lying near the electric pole. There
was PVC guarding to the electric pole and earthing was
provided from PVC guarding to the said pole upto the
ground. The guarding of wire no.2 was partly burnt.
Neutral wire of the said electric line was wrapped to 2 nd
electric pole and it was broken. He had prepared
Annexure-13, Form No.2 and sketch of the wire. He
submitted report to the Executive Engineer of the MSEB at
Arvi. The said Annexure is at Exh.63. He has also
prepared sketch of line which is at Exh.65. He prepared
sketch as per factual position of the electric line situated
on the spot. PVC guarding might have burnt due to
sparking. The second phase wire was touching to the
guarding was brunt. He admitted during cross
.....22/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
22
examination that upper three wires of that line were
having electric current and lower fourth line is a neutral
wire. The second phase wire was touching to the
guarding and if it got earthing then the electric fuse of
transformer would be blown. In the present case, fuse of
the transformer was blown. He further admitted that the
Electric Inspector did not inspect the spot. In his presence,
the electric wire of the said line was at height of 20 feet.
He admitted that accused NO.4 was on leave from
22.3.2004 and he was also on leave on 31.3.2004.
29. Investigating Officer PW12 Ashok Urade, has
narrated about the investigation carried out by him.
During his cross examination, the omission which came in
the evidence of PW10 Dnyaneshwar Kirpane is proved by
the prosecution.
.....23/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
23
30. To prove the homicidal death of the deceased, the
prosecution has examined PW5 Dr.Vaishali Dhoke, who
testified that she has conducted postmortem examination.
The injuries sustained by the deceased were antemortem.
The death of the deceased is due to electrical injuries. She
admitted that injuries shown at Column No.17 are not
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
She further admitted that if any part of the body of a
person comes in contact with live electric wire, he would
sustain injury. There were no symptoms which are
ordinarily noticed in case of receipt of electric shock by
live electric wire.
31. On going through the evidence, the question
whether the death of the deceased is homicide in the
nature or it was by negligence due to the accused persons
and whether the accused persons are authors of the crime
in question requires to be decided considering the nature
.....24/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
24
of the evidence available on record and the charge framed
against the accused persons under Section 304-II of the
IPC. At this stage, it would be appropriate to see Section
304 of the IPC.
32. In order to attract Section 304 of the IPC, it must be
shown that the act committed by the accused persons
amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Culpable homicide is defined in Section 299 of IPC which
states as under:-
"299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death
by doing an act with the intention of causing
death, or with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Explanation 1. - A person who causes bodily injury
to another who is labouring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates
.....25/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
25
the death of that other, shall be deemed to have
caused his death.
Explanation 2 . - Where death is caused by bodily
injury, the person who causes such bodily injury
shall be deemed to have caused the death,
although by resorting to proper remedies and
skillful treatment the death might have been
prevented.
Explanation 3. - The causing of the death of a child
in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may
amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of
a living child, if any part of that child has been
brought forth, though the child may not have
breathed or been completely born."
33. Section 304 of the IPC deals with punishment for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Whoever
commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall
be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment
.....26/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
26
of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which
the death is caused with the intention of causing death,
or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.
34. Plain reading of the above said Section makes it
clear that Section 304 is divided into two parts. The first
part of the Section is generally referred to as "Section 304-
I". Whereas, the second part as "Section 304-II". The first
part applies where accused causes bodily injury to the
victim with intention to cause death or with intention to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Part II
on the other hand comes into play when death is caused
by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause
death without any intention or to cause such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death.
.....27/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
27
35. Before Section 304 can be invoked, the following
ingredients must be satisfied:
(i) the death of the person must have been caused;
(ii) such death must have been caused by the act of
the accused by causing bodily injury;
(iii) there must be an intention on the part of the
accused
(a) to cause death; or
(b) to cause such bodily injury which is likely
to cause death; (Part I) or
(iv) there must be knowledge on the part of the
accused that the bodily injury is such that it is likely
to cause death (Part II).
36. The said Section would be attracted if anyone
commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder if
the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
.....28/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
28
death, but without any intention to cause death or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Therefore, the requirement of Section 304II of the IPC is
that the doer must have the knowledge that the act
performed is likely to cause death or to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, but without any intention
to cause death. Thus, the basic ingredient of Section 304
Part II IPC is presence of knowledge and absence of
intention. The doer must have the knowledge that the act
performed by him would likely cause death etc but there
should not be any intention to cause death.
37. This above being the legal frame work, applying the
same to the present case, let us see the charge against the
accused persons. According to the prosecution, the
accused persons had not taken any action after receipt of
the complaint by repairing the broken wire and, therefore,
the alleged incident has taken place. The evidence on
.....29/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
29
record, especially PW10 Dnyaneshwar Kirpane, shows that
he made a complaint prior to three months of the incident
regarding breaking of wire.
38. Perusal of the Complaint Register Exh.46 and entry
at Exh.47 show that the complaint was made informing
that the wire connected to the pole is broken and,
therefore, the motor is not in working condition and the
wire is to be reconnected. The said complaint is dated
24.1.2004.
39. Exh.75 is the complaint dated 2.2.2004, which
shows that the wire is broken and there is a current and,
therefore, enquiry be made. As far as Exh.75 is concerned,
perusal of the said entry reveals that it is inserted
subsequently. As per the prosecution witnesses, the said
Complaint Register was kept at Sardar Khan Pathan.
Whereas, the evidence on record shows that it was seized
.....30/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
30
from the house of uncle PW3 Devidas Kirpane of the
deceased.
As such, the contention of learned Senior Counsel
for accused Harshwardhan Patil, that interpolation of the
said portion in the Complaint Register cannot be ruled out.
40. Junior Engineer PW7 Pankaj Honade, serving the
MSEB, is the expert witness whose evidence shows that on
inspection he found that there was three phase four wires
lines in that field. There was PVC guarding to the said
electric pole and earthing was provided to the said pole.
The guarding of wire was burnt and neutral wire of said
electric line was wrapped to second electric pole and it
was broken. Exh.63 sufficiently shows that the incident
occurred due to the electric shock due to earthing wire
touching at second phase to the PVC guarding. Thus,
Exh.63 reveals that the accident has not occurred due to
.....31/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
31
the breaking of neutral wire, but it was occurred due to
contact between earthing wire and second phase wire
connected to PVC guarding. The sketch drawn by Junior
Engineer PW7 Pankaj Honade also shows that the incident
occurred due to the contact between two phases i.e.
second phase touching to the guarding wire. Therefore,
even, if it is accepted that the complaint was made
regarding breaking of neutral wire, admittedly, the
incident has not occurred due to breaking of neutral wire,
but it was occurred due to contact between second phase
wire to the PVC guarding wire. Regarding touching of
second wire, admittedly, there was no compliant made by
the father of the deceased. Thus, it is apparent that the
alleged incident has not taken place due to the breaking of
neutral wire, but it took place due to contact between the
earthing wire and second phase wire connecting to the
PVC guarding. Therefore, even, if the allegation is taken as
.....32/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
32
it is, admittedly, the incident has not occurred due to the
breaking of neutral wire regarding which the complaint
was made. Therefore, even, if allegation is taken as it is,
no prima facie case can be said to have been made out
against the accused for committing the offence under
Section 304-II of the IPC. Admittedly, there was no
intention as well as the accused persons were not having
knowledge that there was contact between two wires and
apprehension of any untoward incident. Therefore, basic
ingredients the commission of offence under Section 304-
II of the IPC are absent in the present case.
41. Now, question is, whether the accused persons can
be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 of
the IPC and whether the accused persons are liable for
punishment under Section 304-A of the IPC. The said
Section is reproduced as under:
.....33/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
33
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. Whoever commits culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, shall be
punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death,
or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death;
or with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, or with fine,
or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death.
304-A. Causing death by negligence.--Whoever
causes the death of any person by doing any rash or
negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both."
42. Essential ingredients of Section 304-A of the IPC
are that, (1) there must be the death of a person; (2) the
.....34/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
34
death must be caused by the act of the accused; (3) the
death must be caused due to any rash or negligent act of
the accused; and (4) the act of the accused must not
amount to culpable homicide.
43. It is well settled that Section 304-A of the IPC
carves out a specific offence where death is caused by
doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount
to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under
Section 300.
It is also well settled that Section 304-A of the IPC
by its definition totaly excludes ingredients of Section 299
or Section 300 of the IPC.
44. Thus, there is a distinction between Section 304
and 304-A of the IPC.
Section 304-A deals with cases where death is
caused by doing a rash or negligent act which does not
.....35/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
35
amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
within the meaning of Section 299 or culpable homicide
amounting to murder under Section 300 of the IPC. In
other words, Section 304A excludes all the ingredients of
Section 299 as also of Section 300.
45. Though the term 'negligence' has not been defined
in the Code, it may be stated that negligence is the
omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided
upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something
which a reasonable and prudent man would not do.
46. In the case of Empress of India vs. Idu Beg, reported
in MANU/UP/0001/1881, following observations are
made:
"Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or
wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and
that it may cause injury, but without intention to
.....36/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
36
cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be
caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of
doing such an act with recklessness or
indifference as to the consequences. Criminal
negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or
failure to exercise that reasonable and proper
care and precaution to guard against injury either
to the public generally or to an individual in
particular, which, having regard to all the
circumstances out of which the charge has arisen,
it was the imperative duty of the accused person
to have adopted".
47. To impose criminal liability under Section 304-A of
the IPC, it is necessary that the death should have been the
direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused,
and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause
without the intervention of another's negligence. It must
be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have
been the causa sine qua non.
.....37/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
37
48. Section 304-A of the IPC speaks about causing
death by negligence. Simple lack of care such as will
constitute civil liability, is not enough; for liability under
the criminal law a very high degree of negligence is
required to be proved to establish the offence. As
observed, rashness means hazarding a dangerous or
wanton act.
49. In the case of Alister Anthony Pareira vs State Of
Maharashtra, reported in 2012 (2) SCC 648, the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that a person, responsible for a
reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death which
he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was
dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the
death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the
knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with
culpability of homicide not amounting to murder and
punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC.
.....38/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
38
The Hon'ble Apex Court also proceeded to observe
that there is a presumption that a man knows the natural
and likely consequences of his acts. Moreover, an act does
not become involuntary act simply because its
consequences were unforeseen. It has also been observed
that where negligence or rashness is the cause of death
and nothing more, Section 304A may be attracted but
where the rash or negligent act is preceded with the
knowledge that such act is likely to cause death, Section
304-II of the IPC may be attracted.
50. In the light of the well settled principles of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decision and
this being the legal frame work, if the evidence of the
present matter is taken into consideration, it would show
allegation that despite of the complaint made by PW10
Dnyaneshwar Kirpane, who is the father of the deceased,
to the MSEB as to breaking of neutral cable, no action was
.....39/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
39
taken to repair it which resulted into the untoward
incident and death of the deceased.
51. On going through the entire evidence, admittedly,
accused Nos.1 to 3 were linemen and accused No.4 was
Junior Engineer serving in the MSEB. No evidence is
adduced by the prosecution to show that they were
assigned with the work to inspect and repair the same.
The prosecution has also not examined the Executive
Engineer, who has submitted the report. The evidence of
Junior Engineer PW7 Pankaj Honade shows that the
incident took place due to contact between second phase
cable to the PVC guarding, which was attached to the
pole. This evidence shows that the incident has not taken
place because of breaking of neutral wire, but it took place
due to the contact between two cables.
.....40/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
40
52. Thus, insofar as the facts of the present case are
concerned, it is not established that the accused persons
were responsible to carry out repairing work and with
knowledge that death may be caused they have not carried
out the work and, therefore, the alleged incident has taken
place. There is no dispute that the death of the deceased
is caused due to electrocution. However, on these basic
facts, no evidence is adduced to make out case against the
accused persons they committed the offence under Section
304-II or 304 of the IPC. In any case, the trial court
swayed away by the fact that appellant Harshwardhan
Patil, accused No.4, was Junior Engineer in MSEB and
appellants Dnyaneshwar Dongre (accused No.1), Ramesh
Dhokle (accused No.1), and Gopal Dhabode (accused
No.3) were serving as Linemen and cognizance of the
complaint by the father of the deceased was not taken. In
fact, learned Judge of the trial court ought to have
.....41/-
Judgment
441 apeals91 & 93.07
41
considered that the prosecution has to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that these are accused persons who are
responsible for the act of not repairing the said cables and
having knowledge about the fact of breaking cables and
thereby caused the death. In fact, the alleged incident has
not taken place due to the breaking of cable, which was
complained of, but it was due to contract between two
cables. Thus, the evidence on record is not sufficient to
establish the charge against the accused persons and,
therefore, both the appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence,
I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(1) The Criminal Appeals are allowed. (2) The judgment and order dated 14.3.2007 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Wardha in .....42/-
Judgment 441 apeals91 & 93.07 42 Sessions Trial No.120/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(3) The accused persons are acquitted of the offence for which they are convicted and sentenced. (4) The accused persons be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other offence.
Appeals stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !! Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 04/08/2025 11:35:40