G.V. Dukkeshappa vs State of Karnataka and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—This revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, acquitting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

The case of respondent No. 1-prosecution is that P.W. 1 Dukkeshappa, who is the father of the deceased G.D. Ashok, lodged a complaint as per Ex. P.1 alleging that the deceased is his son studying in 9th standard and on 22.8.2005 at 2.30 a.m., when the complainant woke up to answer nature''s call, the deceased was in sleep. It is further case of prosecution that the complainant after answering the nature''s call, came and slept. At 6.00 a.m., accused-Devendrappa, who is the owner of the land situated behind the house of the complainant came and informed that the deceased Ashok died because of electrocution. Immediately, the complainant along with others went and saw that his son was lying dead. Accused-respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were having land behind the house of complainant, were growing maize crop in their land and fenced the said land with barbed wire and they had taken electric supply to the said wire from the main line. As the deceased went to answer second nature''s call came in contact with the live electric wire put by the accused persons and thereby, he died. Hence, the complainant sought to take action against them. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was investigated and charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences.

During the course of trial before the trial court, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the documents at Exs. P.1 to P.8 as also M.Os. 1 to 16 were got marked on the side of the prosecution. No witnesses were examined nor the documents were produced on the side of the accused. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, ultimately, the trial court has acquitted accused-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the charges alleged against them.

The revision petitioner herein has challenged the said order of acquittal on the grounds that the judgment and order is illegal, invalid and contrary to law and the evidence placed on record. The trial court ought to have considered the evidence of witnesses and exhibits which have consistently established the commission of the alleged offence. It is contended that the evidence of P.W. 4-Doctor clearly shows that the death of the deceased Ashok was because of electrocution. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 shows that the deceased died due to coming into contact with live electric wire on the land of accused respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The trial court has committed serious error in not appreciating the evidence of the prosecution in a proper perspective. The acquittal order is based only on surmises and conjectures and not based on proper appreciation of the evidence. Hence, sought to allow the revision petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the prosecution witnesses have deposed about the suicidal note in the pant pocket of the deceased Ashok, the said suicidal note has not been seized by P.W. 6-the investigating officer. He has submitted that the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and the documents produced, would show that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have fenced their land with barbed wire and obtained the electricity connection to the said wire through the main line. He has further submitted that the Doctor-P.W. 4 has clearly deposed that the death is because of electrocution. Ignoring these relevant materials, the trial court has considered the aspects superficially and has wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and their learned Counsel remained absent and no representation on their behalf.

I have perused the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, the documents Exs. P.1 to P.8 and the material objects M.Os. 1 to 16.

Perusal of the examination in chief of P.W. 1-Dukkeshappa, shows that he has repeated the averments made in Ex. P.1 complaint. During the course of cross examination, P.W. 1 has deposed that he does not know that in the pant pocket of his deceased son, there was one paper and his son left the suicidal note. He has denied the suggestion that Sy. No. 24/3 is not the land belonging to the accused and also denied that his son had not carried the tumbler with water so as to answer the nature''s call. He has deposed that he had signed Ex. P.2 by sitting on the katta of his house. There is distance of 100 feet from the place where the dead body was lying and the electric pole. The wire, which fenced the land of accused, was about 150 feet length. He has denied the suggestion that in order to commit suicide, his son himself came in contact with the live electric wire and died. He has deposed that he does not know as to who wrote the contents of the complaint. He has further deposed that in the grief of death of his son, he signed the complaint, which was written and brought by somebody. He had not read the contents of the complaint. He had also not instructed to write the contents of the complaint in that manner. He signed the complaint at 7.30 a.m. and also the mahazar at 10.00 a.m.

P.W. 2-Ujjappa, in his evidence, has deposed that about 1 1/2 year back, the deceased died because of electrocution nearby the land of Devendrappa. He has deposed that after Devendrappa screamed, he went to the spot and saw the dead body. He saw that electric supply was taken to the land of the accused to wire through main line to prevent the stray animals to enter into the said land. In the cross examination, P.W. 2 has deposed that he does not know the survey number of the land, where the dead body was lying. But, he has stated that the survey number of the present land is 24/3. He has denied the suggestion that there was a suicidal note in the pant pocket of the deceased. He had not observed that whether there was electric supply to the fencing wire. He has also denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide.

P.W. 3 - K. Nagaraja has deposed in his evidence that about 1 1/2 year back, police have conducted mahazar in the land standing in the name of mother of accused-Devendrappa and the accused were cultivating the said land. When he saw the dead body, it was on the fencing wire and the person was dead. It is further deposed that there were pegs around the land of Devendrappa and the police have seized M.Os. 1 to 12. M.O. 12 is the wire which was used for taking the electric supply from the main line. He signed Ex. P.2-mahazar. In the cross examination, P.W. 3 has deposed that in the pant pocket of the deceased Ashok, there was a paper. But he was not knowing that in the said paper, it was written as suicidal note. He has further deposed that the said paper was not read over to him and he was not knowing as to what was there in the said paper. He was also not knowing as to what was written in Ex. P.2.

P.W. 4-Dr. M. Khalandar Sab has deposed, in his evidence, that on 22.8.2005, Nyamathi police requested him to conduct post mortem examination of the deceased Ashok. He conducted the P.M. examination in between 3.45 p.m. and 4.45 p.m. He had noticed the injuries as mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 of his deposition. He issued the P.M. report as per Ex. P.4 and Ex. P.4(a) is his signature.

P.W. 5 is one B.V. Shashikala. She was the Electricity Inspector on the date of incident. She has deposed that on 28.3.2005, she went to the place of incident. In the land bearing Sy. No. 25 belonging to Devendrappa, maize crop was grown and four wires of three phase were passed over the said land of Devendrappa. There was a pump house and nearby the pump house, there was electric pole. She has further deposed that at the distance of 10 meters from the said electric pole, electric line was passed. She has further deposed that she did not find any materials used for taking the illegal electric connection from the main wire and on enquiry, she came to know that the police had taken away all those materials. But there were mark of pegs on the said land and she had issued a report as per Ex. P. 5.

P.W. 6 Siddaraju - P.S.I., in examination in chief, has deposed that on 22.8.2005, when he was in police station, the complainant came to the police station and lodged the complaint and he registered the FIR as per Ex. P.6. The complaint is Ex. P.1 and his endorsement is as per Ex. P.1(b). He has deposed that he had conducted mahazar as per Ex. P.2 on the land bearing Sy. No. 25 belonging to Devendrappa. Devendrappa obtained electric connection to the land for the purpose of protecting the land and there was electricity supply to the said wire. It is further deposed that the deceased died by touching the said wire and he seized M.Os. 1 to 12. Inquest mahazar was conducted as per Ex. P. 3 and recorded the statement of relatives of the deceased and also C.Ws. 5 to 10. In the cross examination, P.W. 6 has deposed that in the nikkar pocket of the deceased, there was a suicidal note. He has further deposed that the brother and mother of the deceased had admitted that the suicidal note was written by the deceased himself.

I have perused the oral evidence of P.W. 6-investigating officer wherein, in the cross examination, P.W. 6 has admitted that there was a suicidal note in the nikkar pocket of the deceased. Perused the inquest mahazar at Ex. P.3. In para No. vii of the inquest mahazar, there is a mention that there was a suicidal note and the deceased has mentioned about the reasons for committing the suicide. Para No. vii of inquest mahazar reads as under:

Therefore, in view of these materials on record and also the defence of the accused that the deceased has committed suicide, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused persons regarding the offence under section 304(ii) of IPC. With regard to the offence under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, the trial court has recorded the finding as to who is the competent person to lodge a complaint as per the provisions of Indian Electricity Rules. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the court as to whether the death was because of the deceased coming in contact with live electric wire, accidentally, or in order to commit suicide, whether he himself had gone to the place of incident and came in contact with live electric wire. Therefore, the benefit of doubt will go to the accused. In view of these materials, both oral and documentary, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is in accordance with the materials placed on record. There is no illegality nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by the trial court in coming to such conclusion. There are no valid grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order impugned herein. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.