Ajay Vishwakarma And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order

dated 5.2.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 09/2019, by Sessions Judge, Panna, whereby charge under Section 304/34 of IPC has been framed

against both the applicants.

The facts given rise to this petition in short are that Sant Kumar Yadav died by electrocution. A Crime No. 423/18 registered at Police Station,

Ajaigarh, district Panna under Section 304/34 of IPC against both the applicants on the report of Ashok Kumar Dwivedi and after investigation, the

charge sheet came to be filed and ultimately committed to the trial court for trial. The Sessions Court after completing all formalities vide order dated

5.2.2019 framed the charge against both the applicants punishable under Section 304/34 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution against both the applicants in short is that the deceased Sant Kumar Yadav was working with the applicant, Ratiram

Yadav who engaged him for repairing of DP installed in the field of Babu Singh Thakur and permit for doing the work was issued, meaning thereby

that at the time given in the permit, the electric current would not be supplied in the electric line and in the given time, one has to repair the fault of

D.P. Ratiram instructed Sant Kumar Yadav to climb up the pole and repair the D.P. On the instructions of Ratiram, Sant Kumar Yadav climbed up

the pole. At that time, there was a permit to cut of electric. He joined the dumper and he suddenly felt that electric current is running in the electric

wire. Ratiram told that no electric current would run in the electric wire, we have permit and if you have any doubt, you can check by touching the

wire by hand. Sant Kumar Yadav was assured that there is no electric current. He touched the electric line and got electrocuted. Retiram felt that

after receiving the permit, Ajay Vishwakarma started the electric line knowing that a man is working on the electric line may get electrocuted. Sant

Kumar was electrocuted and ultimately he died while shifting to the hospital. Â

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the deceased was neither an employee of the M.P.E.B. nor he was a licence holder for doing the

work. He climbed on the pole on his own volition. No ingredients of any offence is found against both the applicants. The applicants have falsely been

implicated in this case.

Learned Penal Lawyer submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record about the action of Ratiram as well as of Ajay Vishwakarma,

Sant Kumar was working on the pole to repair the D.P. on the instructions of the applicants. Ajay Vishwakarma knew that if he would connect the

current, Sant Kumr Yadav may get electrocuted and may die. Inspite of that, he intentionally got connected supply of the electric current in the line

and another applicant, Ratiram intentionally instructed Sant Kumar that he had got permit of disconnection of current in the electric line and you can

touch the electric wire, there is no current. When Sant Kumar Yadav touched the electric wire and he got electrocuted and ultimately died. There is

sufficient evidence against both the applicants. Learned trial court has not committed any error in framing the charge.

Having heard, learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary of Crime No. 423/18 of P.S. Ajaygarh.

No doubt, Ajay Vishwakarma and Ratiram Yadav both are employee of the M.P.E.B. Ratiram was engaged for repairing the electrical line and he

engaged Sant Kumar Yadav for doing that work. There was a permit for repairing the work, meaning thereby that at that time no current would be

running in the electric wire. The electric current would be disconnected during that period. During the disconnected period, Ratiram Yadav instructed

Sant Kumar Yadav to repair the D.P. and while he was repairing the D.P., suddenly, the applicant no. 1, Ajay Vishwakarma without collecting any

information that work in the electric line was going on or over, he connected the current in the electric wire and Ratiram Yadav, the applicant no. 2,

instructed Sant Kumar Yadav to touch the electrical wire. Sant Kumar touched, the electric wire and he got electrocuted and died. There is sufficient

material available on record.

The trial court after hearing both the parties found that there are sufficient ground for proceeding further against the both the accused and thus, the

trial court did not discharge both the applicants from the charge under Section 227 of CrP.C. and proceeded to frame charge under Section 228 of

Cr.P.C. Section 228 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :-

Framing of charge.- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the

accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, (or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or as the

case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate) shall try the offence in

accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused

shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claimed to be tried.

Language implies in Section 228 of Cr.P.C is that if any court on the basis of documents and the evidence collected during investigation finds that

there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed some offence, then it shall frame charge in writing against the accused, meaning

thereby that if any court finds sufficient evidence on record for presuming any ground against the accused in regard to the committing of any offence,

the court can proceed to frame the charge against the accused. At this stage, the court has not to consider whether there is sufficient evidence for

conviction against the accused. The trial court categorically discussed the case law in this regard and proceeded to frame a charge instead to

discharge the accused from the charge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, this court does not find any illegally, perversity or irregularity in the impugned order dated 5.2.2019 passed in

S.T. No. 09/2019. This revision deserves to be and hereby dismissed.