Firoz Ahmad vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Special Judge (constituted under Electricity Act, 2003), Raigarh (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (under the Electricity Act) No. 158/2021, whereby the learned Special Judge has framed the charges under Sections 304 Part-II, 201 of the IPC and Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Brief facts of the case are that the MSP Steel & Power Limited Company, in which the petitioner was working as Safety Officer since 12.07.2010, had issued a work order dated 13.04.2020 to Sumit International Company Limited for slag crushing execution work and according to work order, the accommodation to the employees/labour working under the control of Sumit International Company was to be provided by the MSP Steel and Power Limited Company. Accordingly, co-accused Rakesh Tripathi, an employee of MSP company was deputed for making arrangement of accommodation for the employees/ labour of Sumit International Company. A hall in SMS Labour Colony was arranged and In the said hall, in the kitchen, a temporary electric wiring has been done by the MSP Steel and Power Limited. On the fateful day i.e. on 14.07.2020, deceased Rohit Kenwat, after completing his night shift, returned along with his brother-in-law Bharat Kenwat in the said hall and after tea, when he put his wet T-shirt on the G.I. wire, came into contact of electric current flowing in the G.I. wire through MS Pipe and died during the course of treatment at Hospital. Thereafter, after receiving the merg intimation, investigation was carried out and on 21.07.2020, FIR under crime No.182/2020 was registered at Police Station – Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, against the present applicant along with two others for the offence punishable under Sections 304(2), 201, 34 of the IPC and Sections 146 and 149 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed against the applicant and co-accused persons under Sections 304 Part-II, 201 of the IPC and Section 146 of the Indian Electricity Act. Hence, the present criminal revision by the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order is illegal and against the settled principles of law. There is no prima facie evidence for framing the charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC. To constitute the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove (i) the intention of the accused to cause death, (ii) that the accused acted with the knowledge to cause death and (iii) premeditation. The aforesaid ingredients are missing in the case. Hence, the learned trial Court has erred in framing the charge.

It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the damaged/leaked electricity wire came into contact of iron structure and wall & the G.I. wire was used for putting and drying up the clothes by the employee. It is not the case of the prosecution that GI wire was used for electricity supply and it is also not the case that the deceased first time came to the residential accommodation provided by the MSP Steel & Power Limited.

Learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution case, since 30.06.2020 the deceased was residing there and regularly using the accommodation provided, including that G.I. wire and it is only a result of an accident that the electricity wire for supply of electricity got damaged/leaked and came into the contact of iron structure, wall and G.I. wire but the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC has wrongly been registered and based upon such prosecution story, framing of charges under Section 304 Part II, 201 of IPC and Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is liable to be quashed. It has been also submitted by learned counsel that looking to the entire challan, no prima-facie case of Section 304 Part-II IPC is made out. So as to constitute the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC, the knowledge is essential but in the present case, the same is missing.

The incident took place when damage/leaked electric wire came into the contact of the iron structure, wet wall and G.I. wire as it was admittedly a rainy season, and the same has been given a shape of criminality under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

As regard Section 201 IPC, learned counsel submits that disconnecting of electricity supply was carried out with a view to prevent further accident and, as such, the same does not fall within the ambit of Section 201 of IPC.. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Special Judge, while framing the charges under Section 146 of Electricity Act, assigned no reason that what violation or non-compliance of which order or direction attracts this Section and straightway charge has been framed under the Electricity Act, which is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik reported in (2008) 14 SCC 479 and Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 5454.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Perusal of FIR goes to show that deceased Rohit Kenwat was a labour and he was residing in the room where the accident took place. When the deceased was trying to hang his shirt on GI wire, at the same time, electricity current was flowing in it and he came into contact of electricity current and died.

While dealing with the question of invoking of Section 304 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Mahadev (supra), held in para 22 and 23 as under :-

“22. 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).

Section 304A was inserted by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870 (Act XXVII of 1870) and reads thus:

“304A. 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.

The section deals with homicidal death by rash or negligent act. It does not create a new offence. It is directed against the offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300, IPC and covers those cases where death has been caused without `intention' or `knowledge'. The words "not amounting to culpable homicide" in the provision are significant and clearly convey that the section seeks to embrace those cases where there is neither intention to cause death, nor knowledge that the act done will in all probability result into death. It applies to acts which are rash or negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person.

In the incident, a final report has been prepared by the prosecution, and it is written in last para of the final report that after being found sufficient challanable evidence against accused No.1-General Safety Officer namely Firoz Ahmed, S/o Moh. Suleman Ahmed, aged 44 years and accused No.2- G.M. Electrical namely Ramashankar Singh, S/o Suraj Singh, aged 54 years, M.S.P. & Power Limited Company, Jamgaon, Raigarh, the Challan No.363/2020, dated 31.12.2020 has been prepared and filed before the Court. Furthermore, according to Electrical Accident Investigation Report dated 16.07.2020, the petitioner was responsible for death of deceased Rohit Kenwat. The relevant portion of this report is reproduced herein as under :-

From the aforesaid, it is quite vivid that in the final report the petitioner, after being found sufficient evidence, has been shown to be guilty of offence, whereas in the Electrical Accident Investigation Report dated 16.07.2020, Factory Manager/Managing Director held responsible for the incident.

So far as the production of document relating to the incident by the accused person is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the matter of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and another reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766 held that while framing the charge the Court do not debar from looking into any material produced by the accused.

Further, while dealing with the matter where apart from final report, the Court may also reply upon any other evidence or material, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Ghulam (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 18 as under :-

“18. The purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial.

The learned trial Court, on the basis of material that is placed before it by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C., has framed charges as under :

Further, while dealing with the question of framing of issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahadev (supra) held in para 32, which reads thus:-

“32. The standard to be applied for judging whether a person charged has been negligent or not would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It was further observed that mere deviation from normal professional practices is not necessarily evidence of negligence. An error of judgment on the part of the professional is also not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgment. At times, the professional is confronted with making a choice between the devil nd the deep sea and he has to choose the lesser evil. Medical profession is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which a doctor honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. It was, therefore, held that the prosecution of the doctor was ill founded and accordingly, it was quashed.”

Culpable homicide has been defined in Section 299 of IPC which reads as under:-

"299 Culpable homicide.-Whoever cause 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."

For commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that death has been caused by the accused under any of the circumstances mentioned in five exceptions to Section 300 of IPC.

In the instant case, as noticed earlier, there is no material to show that petitioner was having knowledge about the leakage/damaged electricity wire and he intentionally or knowingly arranged the electricity for labours staying in the accommodation provided by Sumit International Company Limited. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. From the material available on record, it appears that incident took place when the deceased was drying his clothes on G.I. wire, the electricity wire got damaged/leaked and came in to the contact of iron structure, wall and G.I. as a result of which deceased came into contact of electricity current and died, therefore, the alleged act of the petitioner is punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has not considered the material in its proper perspective and erred in framing the charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

So far as framing of charge under Section 201 IPC and Section 146 of the Electricity Act is concerned, the learned trial Court after considering the documents and statement of witnesses, has rightly framed the charge under the said Sections against the petitioner. This Court does not find any fault in the same.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to frame charge against the petitioner under Sections 304 Part-A instead of Section 304 Part-II of IPC.