Karnataka High Court
Nanjundappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1048/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Nanjundappa
S/o Mallappa
Aged 44 years
Occ: Telecom Mechanic
In B.S.N.L. at Molakalmuru
R/o Nanjundeshwar Nilaya
Janata Colony
Gandhinagar
Challakere
Taluk: Challakere
District: Chitradurga
2. K Thippeshi
S/o Kadaraiah
Aged 34 years
Occ: Labour
R/o Talaku
Taluk: Challakere
District: Chitradurga. .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri C H Jadhav, Sr. Counsel
A/w Miss Pooja Kattimani, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By Molakalmuru Police Station. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri B.J. Eswarappa, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
order passed in Crl.A.No.57/2007 dated 22.07.2010 passed
by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.,
Chitradurga and also Judgment and order dated 12.10.2007
passed by the Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C. in
C.C.No.198/2004 and acquit the petitioners.
This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard and
reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement of order
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment and order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the JMFC, Molakalmuru in C.C.No.198/2004 and also the judgment and order dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl.A.No.57/2007 confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
2. By its judgment and order, JMFC Court, convicted the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to 3 undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year three months and penalty of Rs.3,000/- each and in case of default in paying the fine amount, they have to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for three months.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the version of the complainant are that on 21.11.2003 at about 1.00 p.m. Sri.S.Uday Shankar S/o P.W.2 was watching TV in the house at Molakalmuru Town, New Police Quarters No.13, and all of a sudden there was a sound in the TV, then, the deceased Uday Shankar tried to separate dish wire and the telephone wire, which were together, at that time, because of the short circuit in the wire, the right hand of Uday Shankar was burnt and he expired. When enquired, during the course of investigation, it was noticed that accused No.2 put the telephone wire of 11 KV Power from the 4 telephone pole to the Police Quarters and there was a connection to the quarters of P.W.2 and the other quarters also. When accused No.2 was working on the DP Pole, as he pulled the telephone wire, the telephone wire was cut and it came in contact with 11 KV Power line, then the electricity passed into the telephone wire and at that time, there was a sound in the TV in the house of P.W.2 and as the deceased went to separate the telephone wire and cable wire, there was a short circuit and thereby, right hand of the deceased was burnt and he died because of the said short circuit. It is the further alleged that the said incident took place because of the negligent act of accused No.1, so also, because of the negligent act on the part of accused No.2 and it is alleged that both the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC.
5
The case was tried before the Magistrate Court. After considering the materials placed before it, the Magistrate Court convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, both the accused persons preferred the appeal before the appellate Court, which also, after considering the materials placed before it, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 challenged the legality and correctness of the same on the grounds as mentioned in the petition.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the 6 petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
6. Learned senior counsel during the course of his arguments has submitted that since the offence alleged is of technical in nature, no report of the technical expert has been obtained by the trial Court while disposing of the said matter. He has also submitted that looking to the witnesses examined before the trial Court, they are not experts in the said field/matter and their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. He has further submitted that so far as accused No.1 is concerned, absolutely there is no material even according to the case of the prosecution and he has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court. He has further submitted that the deceased without knowing that there is electricity in the wire, himself touched the 7 said wire and then there was a short circuit and because of his own negligence and fault, he sustained injury and expired.
Learned senior counsel has also submitted that there is no proximity to the death of Uday Shankar and the incident alleged against the petitioners. Even looking to the oral and documentary materials placed by the prosecution, prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused persons. The first appellate Court also without discussing all these material aspects simply endorsed its view with that of the trial Court . Hence, he has submitted that as the petitioners are innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offences, they may be acquitted by setting aside the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below.
8
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution clearly shows the negligent act on the part of accused Nos.1 and 2. With regard to the allegation that when accused No.2 climbed the D.P.Pole and he pulled the 11 KV power wire, it was cut and because of that reason the electricity in the said wire passed on to the telephone wire and that was the main reason for the causing the death of deceased Uday Shankar. He has also submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses has established the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the materials and rightly convicted both the accused persons. So far as the factual aspects are concerned, there are concurrent findings by the Courts below and hence, there are no grounds for 9 this Court to interfere into the judgment and order passed by the Courts below and hence, submitted to dismiss the petition.
8. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition, judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, so also, judgment and order passed by the first appellate Court and also the submissions made by the learned Counsel on both sides at the Bar.
9. Looking to the judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court extensively considered each and every aspect of the matter referring to the oral evidence of each witnesses and also the relevant documents produced in the case. The trial Court discussed about the evidence of the Doctor, who conducted Post-Mortem examination over the body of the deceased Uday Shankar and observed that he 10 has stated in detail about his examination over the dead body and also the about the cause of death of the deceased. The PM report is produced as per Ex.P-2, wherein regarding the cause of death, P.W.1 has opined that the cause of death is due to instantaneous cardiac arrest and paralysis of the brain stem secondary to electric shock. It is also observed by the trial Court in its judgment that looking to the evidence of Doctor (P.W.1), it clearly shows that the deceased died because of passing of electricity in the telephone wire, when he tried to separate the telephone wire with cable wire.
10. Though it is the defence of the accused persons that the electric short circuit is because of TV cable wire and not passing of electricity into the telephone wire, but as contended by the prosecution, in this regard trial Court has also referred to the evidence of P.Ws.9, 10 and 16, who 11 have deposed in their evidence, that when they also touched the telephone instruments in their respective houses, they also felt the presence of electricity in the said wire and immediately they have thrown the telephone instruments in their house. The trial Court has also discussed that these three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.9, 10 and 16, none of these witnesses have stated that there is a supply of electricity in the TV cable wire and they have not stated that their TV has been put into any kind of damage. Therefore, the trial Court opined that considering the evidence of those three witnesses, the contention of the accused that there was supply of electricity in the TV cable wire or the current wire, cannot be accepted and it is because of the electricity supply in the telephone wire. The trial Court has also referred to the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased as 12 deposed by P.W.1, so also, it referred to the evidence of P.W.2, the complainant, who is the owner of quarters No.13, wherein the incident took place, the judgment of the trial Court shows that the defence of the accused before the trial Court was that, at the time of the incident they were not at the spot and they were elsewhere, therefore, they are not responsible for the alleged incident.
11. Looking to said defence of the accused, it is nothing but plea of alibi; as the trial Court's judgment clearly shows that prosecution examined P.W.15, the Higher Officer in the Department of Electricity, who stated in his evidence that, on said day, accused No.1 was on duty and accused No.2 was also working under accused No.1. It is also observed by the trial Court that the evidence of P.W.15, Higher Officer of accused Nos.1 and 2, clearly shows that both the accused persons were 13 working on said day and hence, the trial Court disbelieved the contention of accused Nos.1 and 2 that they were not at all present at the spot of incident. It is also observed by the trial Court that accused have not placed any satisfactory evidence before the trial Court to show that they were not present at the spot and they were working somewhere else. The trial Court has also discussed another important aspect of the matter that P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence that on the same day i.e., on 21.11.2003, he has examined accused No.2, who stated to have been fallen from the electric pole and sustained injuries to his fingers and also on both the thighs, and in this connection, P.W.1 has clearly stated in his evidence that he examined accused No.2 for the injuries sustained and the treatment was given to him as out-patient and out-patient slip in respect of accused No.2 was also 14 produced before the trial Court, which is marked as Ex.P.3. Basing upon these materials, the trial Court observed that the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy and it also goes to falsify the defence of accused No.2 that he was not at all present at the spot on the date of incident.
12. The judgment of the trial Court also shows that the evidence of prosecution witnesses shows that the deceased, when heard the sound in the Television, firstly he switched off the main electricity switch and then he tried to separate two wires and in spite of switching off the main current switch, still there was electricity when he was separating two wires, which are twisted and hanged in the quarters of P.W.2. Considering these important materials, the trial Court held that prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that it is because of the negligent act of 15 accused Nos.1 and 2 the incident has taken place, which resulted in the death of the deceased Uday Shankar.
13. I have also perused the judgment of the first appellate Court, which also re-appreciated both oral and documentary materials and also came to the conclusion that prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and it also held that there is no illegality in the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court.
14. Looking to all these materials placed on record, so far as factual aspects are concerned there are concurrent findings by the Courts below and in the revision petition the scope is limited, the revisional Court cannot interfere into the factual 16 aspects to alter or modify the findings of the Courts below, unless and until it is shown that there is grave illegality committed by the Courts below in dealing with the matter. No such grave illegality has been pointed out by the petitioners herein. Therefore, considering the entire materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality committed by the Courts below in coming to such conclusion nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by the Courts below. Hence, no grounds to interfere into the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR