Karnataka High Court
B.E. Chandrashekar S/O G. Eraiah, R.S. ... vs State Of Karnataka By Peenya Police on 15 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007CRILJ486, 2007 CRI. L. J. 486, 2007 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 634 (KAR.) = 2007 CRI. L. J. 486, 2006 (6) AIR KANT HCR 213, (2007) ILR (KANT) 809, (2007) 2 ALLCRILR 596, (2002) 100 DLT 38, (2002) 3 CHANDCRIC 40, (2002) 4 RECCRIR 115, (2002) 64 DRJ 332, (2003) 115 COMCAS 957, (2003) 1 CRIMES 7
Author: Ajit J. Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J. Gunjal
ORDER Ajit J. Gunjal, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the charge-sheet in Crime No. 152/2000 registered by the Peenya Police, Bangalore City and the proceedings in C.C. No. 16443/2001 on the file of the VII Additional CMM, Bangalore.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition can be summarized as follows: The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are accused 1, 2 and 3. At the relevant point of time, when the accident/ incident occurred, Accused No. l was the Chief Engineer of Transmission, Accused No. 2 was the Superintending Engineer, SRS station arid Accused No. 3 was the Assistant Executive Engineer. As of now, all the petitioners/ accused are no longer in service. The matrix of the prosecution case is that on 05.04.2000 at about 2.30 p.m., a couple of children were playing with a ball. During the said play, the ball fell on the roof top of M/s. Sonata Machine Tools factory. The prosecution case is that the said roof does not have any access either by staircase or by any other means. One of the boys, namely, Raja climbed on to the rooftop and with a pole tried to retrieve the said ball. To his misfortune, the pole came in contact with High Tension Wire which was running on top of the building and he was electrocuted, the said high-tension line is of capacity of 66 KV single line which runs from Peenya onwards and feeds the Neelamangala sub-station. Suffice it so say that after the pole came in contact with live wire, there was tripping, which would necessarily mean that the power was shut off. Accused No. 3 promptly went to the place and found that the boy was seriously injured. The injured boy was taken to the Victoria hospital. The boy, Raja succumbed to the injuries on 08.04.2000 at about 5.15 a.m. The brother of the deceased, Raju lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional Peenya Police. Regarding the incident, the Peenya Police registered a case in UDR No. 23/2000. Inquest was done. During the investigation of the UDR case, the Inspector of Peenya Police would file a report and on the basis of the said report, a case is registered in Crime No. 152/2000 by the said Peenya Police for the offences punishable under Section 427 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, investigation is taken up. The statements of the neighbours and that of all the other persons was, recorded. A chargesheet has been filed. The said initiation of proceedings in Crime No. 152/2000 culminated in filing of the charge sheet is questioned in this petition.
3. The basis for filing of the charge-sheet are on four grounds:
(i) the petitioners have not taken due care and were negligent in allowing the buildings to come up below the Extra-High Tension Line in question; (ii) the petitioners have not taken due care and were negligent in not reporting to the officials of the Bangalore City Corporation, when the buildings were coming up below the Extra High Tension Line in question and demolished them;
(iii) the petitioners have commissioned power supply to such buildings which have come up under or below the Extra High Tension Line in question;
(iv) the petitioners were negligent and have not taken the requisite care to avoid persons climbing on the buildings which had come up on the Extra High Tension Line.
4. According to the prosecution, these four causes have caused the death of the deceased Raja due to the inaction and negligence of the petitioners.
5. Mr. S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made in the complaint as well as the materials collected during the course of the investigation does not prima facie disclose any offence punishable under Sections 427 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. He would submit that even if these allegations and the materials collected by the investigative agency is not controverted, still then, no case is made out to drive home the guilt under Sections 427 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. He would submit that the said High Tension Line was drawn sometime in the year 1965 which was much prior to the construction of the building and enough publication was given to the effect that no construction shall take place under the said High Tension Line and a communication was also issued to the building owner to the effect that the said contraction is bad. He would submit that after the filing of the complaint by the C.W-1 (Police Inspector), all these materials were brought to his notice and notwithstanding the same, the case has been registered. According to him, this would fall squarely within the ambit of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bahan Lal .
6. Mr. Ramakrishna, learned HCGP would submit that there is enough material on record to show that indeed the petitioners were negligent. He submits that a statutory duty is cast upon them to take care that no high tension wire runs on a building. He submits that prudence requires that they should take care of the surroundings also. In the circumstances, he submits that this is not a case where the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C could be exercised.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. The undisputed facts are that the said 66 KV single line was installed in the year 1965. At that point of time, admittedty, no construction had come up anywhere within the close vicinity of the High Tension Line. Sometime later, Peenya Industrial Estate came into existence and the concerned authorities of the KFTCL (now) published two newspaper items, a copy of which is produced, one in a Kannada Daily, 'Praja Vani' and another in 'Indian Express', both are to the same effect that "it has come to the notice of the Corporation that the lands coming under and in the vicinity of the over head Transmission Lines, particularly in and around Bangalore are being sold toy owners without notifying the purchasers the existence, of KPTCL's transmission lines". According to the Indian Electricity Rules, a clear corridor of 15 meters underneath the transmission lines should be left and no structures should be put up in this corridor. If violated and if any consequences like loss of life or property, KPTCL is not responsible. This is for information of general public." Suffice it to say that during the course of the investigation, the statements of the neighbours was recorded by the investigative agency. All the witnesses examined have made a statement to the effect that the said building over which the High Tension Line runs was constructed about 6 to 7 years prior to the recording of the statement which would necessarily mean that it was constructed sometime in the year 1993-1994. In fact, the KPTCL has issued a disclaimer saying that any loss of life or property with relation to the High Tension Line in and around Bangalore, they would not be responsible.
8. The question whether the proceedings of this nature could be quashed, had come up before the Apex Court in innumerable cases. In the case of Pepsi Food Limited and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, , the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are explained. It is stated that if no material is forthcoming to show that it is the accused who were realty responsible for the alleged incident, the proceedings and the complaint are liable to be quashed. If the complaint and the preliminary enquiry in the nature of evidence do not make out a case against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that all the three accused, undoubtedly are the employees (since retired) of KPTCL and the lines were drawn much before they entered into service. All the construction in and around the said High Tension Transmission Line has come up much recently. A disclaimer has also been issued by the KPTCL. On the basis of this material, if one were to consider the case, the fault may lie at the door of the City Corporation or the local Municipal authorities who have issued necessary license for the construction of the said buildings. Apparently, under the Act, it was incumbent upon the local bodies to ensure that no construction comes about in the vicinity of the High Tension Line but they have not taken care of that. The whole question is whether the petitioners-accused could be held responsible for the alleged incident. The ingredients of Section 304A of Indian Penal Code has been contravened, Section 304A of Indian Penal Code would deal with causing death by negligence "-whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide...", which would necessarily mean that there should be an element of rashness and there should be an element of negligence. The interpretation of rashness and negligence fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Ambalal Bhat v. State of Gujarat . The Apex court, while dealing with the applicability of Section 304A has held that the act causing the deaths "must be the causa causans". "In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules and regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of rash and negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent the additional evidence of his acquittal would haw to be allowed.
9. Elaborating the said observations, following the observation made in the case of Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap reported in (1902) 4 Bom.LR 679 has held that the act causing the deaths "must be causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non". This view has been adopted by this Court in several decisions. The Apex Court has referred to the case of Kurban Hussein Mohammedaij Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra, .
10. One will have to see whether there was any contravention of the Rules and if so, to what extent. Apparently, in the case on hand, there was no contravention of any Rule. The said High Tension Line was drawn much prior to the construction of the building in question. Apparently, the said building did not have any access to go to the roof. As to how the boy climbed on to the roof to retrieve the ball and came in contact with the live High Tension Wire with a pole in his hand is a mystery by itself. But the facts remain that he died.
11. It is to be noticed that the rash and negligent act referred to Section 304A means an act which is an immediate cause of death and not an act which can, at best, said to be a remote cause of death. No doubt, the act of negligence would be to the driving of any vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life or likely to cause harm or injury to hurt a person where no harm has actually been caused. The requirement is that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of death. There must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act of the accused. In the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to garner any material to show that there is a direct nexus between the death of the young boy and the alleged act of negligence of the petitioners. Ultimately, one will have to see whether the accused were really responsible for the death of the young boy. It is unfortunate, one young life is extinguished and it is caused because of the boy corning in contact with the High-Tension wire while retrieving a ball which had fallen on the roof. But in the absence of any evidence to drive home that the negligence can be attributed to the petitioners, I am of the view that the proceedings are required to be terminated. As sated earlier, the evidence garnered by the investigation agency also does not disclose that it is the inaction on the part of the accused which has resulted in the death of the boy. The evidence of all the witnesses, at best, could be said that the construction had come up after the High Tension Wire was put up way back in the year 1965. Even if the accused were to go to trial, the prosecution certainty cannot improve upon the evidence which is collected now. Even if this evidence remains uncontroverted, to my mind, the case of negligence or trespass is not made out by the prosecution.
12. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings in Crime No. 152/2000 in C.C. No. 16443/2001 pending on the file of VII Addl. CMM, Bangalore stands quashed and the proceeding stands terminated.
13. Needless to say, the dismissal of the complaint does not debar the family of the deceased to lay a claim in a civil court for damages/compensation.