B.N. Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the records.

Petitioners have sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1284/2013 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) & JMFC, Tiptur, registered against them for the offence punishable u/s 304(A) of IPC.

The factual matrix of the case is that :

The person by name Shivalinga S/o Late Siddappa, lodged a complaint stating that his son B. Manjunatha was working in Unit-I of Tiptur Sub-Division in KPTCL. On 12.05.2013 it is stated that person by name Prabhuswamy made a request to the KPTCL that there is problem with regard to electric lane situated in front of his house. In this contest, the deceased Manjunatha was sent along with First Division Mastery Raju and Second Division Mastery B.N. Krishnamurthy in order to verify the problem near the house of Prabhuswamy. All the above three persons went there and while attending the work Manjunath who claimed the electric pole, at that time it is alleged that the fuse pertaining to 100 KVA Transformer was removed in order to enable the said Manjunath to attend the said work. However, the another fuse pertaining to transformer of 63 KVA established nearby was not removed. Therefore, the said Manjunath who was repairing the jump in the said another electric pole was electrocuted.

The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that even considering and accepting the face value of all the material on record, there is no material to show that accused persons are neglected in any manner in order to cause death of the deceased.

I have carefully considered the material on record. Statement of witnesses also discloses that these three persons actually went near the house of Prabhuswamy. It is an undisputed fact that petitioners are the persons, who are technically knew how to attend the work pertaining to the electricity problems and it is in fact according to the prosecution they ought have to have properly guided the said Manjunath as to how to do the work. The allegations against these two persons, who knew the defects on the spot are that they have only remove the fuse pertaining to 100 KVA Transformer but they did not removed another fuse pertaining to another 63 KVA Transformer. The learned counsel further submitted that they did not know Manjunath would climb another pole, so that they can also remove fuse of another 63 KVA Transformer.

At this stage, it cannot be said that these petitioners had no knowledge about the Manjunath climbing the said pole when all the three persons went there they must first prepare themselves plan and how to execute the work. There is allegation that these two persons had responsibility to take all necessary steps or care in order to see no unpleasant situation occurs. Whether such acts not done by the petitioners which amounts to negligence under the provisions of Section 304(A) of IPC has to be appreciated only after appreciating the evidence on record. At this stage when there is material to show that these three persons were negligent in not taking care and due to their negligent act Manjunath died, I do not find any material to interfere with the order of the trial court. Further, the statement of witnesses also clearly discloses that the incident would have been avoided if case was taken and also with respect to negligence on the part of the three persons. Under the aforesaid circumstances I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the trial court.

The learned counsel also relied on the unreported decision of this court in Crl. P. No. 1864/2005 dated 18.03.2009, wherein this court at para-3 held that the Assistant Engineer in Tiptur Sub-Division, BESCOM had issued strict instructions to follow the safety measures, but there is no material on record to show that the deceased has followed the safety measure, hence petitioner in that case held cannot be prosecuted. Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The facts of the said case are totally different from the case on hand. In this case it is shown that the petitioners are also responsible in their duties and negligent in their acts irresponsible. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel is not applicable to the present case.

In view of the above, the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Any observations made above is only for the disposal of the petition and shall not be construed by the trial court for disposal of the case on merits. The trial court has to take its own decision on the material and evidence on record.