State of Himachal Pradesh vs Atma Ram and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—Assailing the judgment dated 19.9.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jubbal, in Criminal Case No. 102-2 of 2004, titled as State of H.P. vs. Atma Ram & another., whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted, the State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is the case of prosecution that on 22.8.2003 at about 12.30 p.m., complainant Prem Singh (PW-1) had taken his mule for grazing in open fields. Electric wires from rotten electric poll had broken and live wires of electricity fallen on the ground. Mule of the complainant got entangled with the same and got electrocuted. Complainant lodged complaint with the police against accused Atma Ram, Moolak Raj, who were officials of the Electricity Board on the allegations that they failed to discharge their duties of maintaining the pole and the wires in proper condition. Police registered FIR No. 115/2003 dated 23.8.2003, against the accused persons at Police Station Theog. Post mortem of dead body of the mule was got conducted by the police and post mortem report (Ex. PW-8/F) taken on record. Investigation was conducted by PW-8 who also prepared the spot map. Dr. Ankush (PW-6) conducted the post mortem on the body of the mule. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 336 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eight witnesses and statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded, in which they pleaded false implication. In defence accused persons examined three witnesses.

Appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charged offences.

The question which needs to be considered is as to whether the act of the accused persons was so rash/negligent that it endangered the life of the mule of the complainant and that the accused persons caused mischief as a result of which mule died.

The fact that mule died on account of electrocution cannot be disputed, the Department itself paid Rs. 36,000/- as compensation to the complainant. But in the instant case, from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that accused persons were in any manner negligent in maintaining the electric pole or the live electric wires. They had not fallen on the ground on account of the rash or negligent acts of the accused. Prosecution has failed to show the duties which the accused persons, were required to perform. The learned trial Court correctly and completely appreciated the matter so placed on record by the prosecution.

Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for.

As such, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.