1. Conviction under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, for causing death by installing a naked, electrically charged wire to prevent trespass into a latrine. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 189
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
31st July, 1963
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Cherubin Gregory, Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. Goburdhun Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. S. P. Verma, Advocate, for Respondent.
Advocates:
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, S.P.Varma
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, S.P.Varma
Important Points
An occupier of property cannot set lethal traps, such as naked live wires, to prevent trespass. Such acts constitute rashness under Section 304A of the IPC and are not protected by the right of private defense of property.
Subject
Criminal Law - Negligence
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304A - Causing death by rash or negligent act - Fixing a naked, uninsulated copper wire carrying high voltage across a passage to prevent entry into a latrine - Act done in reckless disregard of serious consequences to people coming in contact with it - Constitutes a rash act. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 97, 99 and 103 - Right of private defence of property - Type of injury caused by a trap cannot be brought within the scope of Section 99 or Section 103. (Para 6)
(C) Criminal Law - Liability towards trespassers - Occupier not entitled to inflict personal injury by direct violence or by setting traps designed to cause bodily harm - Setting a naked live wire is akin to setting spring guns - Trespasser enters at own risk, but occupier must not set traps designed to do bodily harm. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused fixed a naked and uninsulated copper wire, connected to the electrical wiring of his house, across the passage leading to his latrine to prevent intruders from using it. A person, who had been using the latrine after her own had collapsed, touched the wire while exiting and died due to the electric shock. The accused was convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The act of charging a naked wire with lethal voltage was a rash act done in reckless disregard of the consequences. The defense of private property and the status of the deceased as a trespasser do not justify the use of lethal traps.
Issues: Whether the act of setting a live wire to prevent trespass was protected by the right of private defense of property and whether the status of the deceased as a trespasser exempts the accused from criminal liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The right of private defense of property is subject to Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code and does not extend to setting lethal traps. While a trespasser enters at their own risk, an occupier is not entitled to willfully set traps designed to cause bodily harm.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 97, 99 and 103 - Right of private defence of property - Type of injury caused by a trap cannot be brought within the scope of Section 99 or Section 103. (Para 6)
(C) Criminal Law - Liability towards trespassers - Occupier not entitled to inflict personal injury by direct violence or by setting traps designed to cause bodily harm - Setting a naked live wire is akin to setting spring guns - Trespasser enters at own risk, but occupier must not set traps designed to do bodily harm. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused fixed a naked and uninsulated copper wire, connected to the electrical wiring of his house, across the passage leading to his latrine to prevent intruders from using it. A person, who had been using the latrine after her own had collapsed, touched the wire while exiting and died due to the electric shock. The accused was convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The act of charging a naked wire with lethal voltage was a rash act done in reckless disregard of the consequences. The defense of private property and the status of the deceased as a trespasser do not justify the use of lethal traps.
Issues: Whether the act of setting a live wire to prevent trespass was protected by the right of private defense of property and whether the status of the deceased as a trespasser exempts the accused from criminal liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The right of private defense of property is subject to Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code and does not extend to setting lethal traps. While a trespasser enters at their own risk, an occupier is not entitled to willfully set traps designed to cause bodily harm.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
What is the liability under S. 304A IPC for causing death by a rash or negligent act?
What is the applicability of the right of private defence of property in cases involving dangerous traps set by a property occupier?
What are the distinctions between trespasser liability and criminal liability for injuries caused by dangerous traps on private premises?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the act was protected by the right of private defence of property or if no duty was owed to a trespasser under common law. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Installing a lethal high-voltage naked wire without warning constitutes a rash act in reckless disregard of human life, exceeding the limits of private defence. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
4. An occupier cannot set traps or live wires intended to cause bodily harm to trespassers, as such acts are rash, negligent, and unlawful. (Para 4 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 8 )
6. Does the right of private defence of property justify setting lethal traps for trespassers?
No. The right of private defence under Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code is subject to Section 99, and the use of lethal traps exceeds the permissible scope of injury. (Para 6 )
7. Does an occupier owe any duty to a trespasser regarding the installation of dangerous traps?
While a trespasser enters at their own risk, an occupier is not entitled to willfully set traps or live wires designed to cause bodily harm or act in reckless disregard of trespassers. (Para 7 )
8. Can common law principles regarding trespassers be used to excuse a crime defined under the Indian Penal Code?
No. Where a Code specifically defines the ingredients of a crime and available defences, common law principles cannot be invoked to treat a statutory crime as a permissible act. (Para 7 )
9. When does charging a wire with electricity constitute a rash act under Section 304A IPC?
Charging a naked wire with voltage high enough to be lethal, without providing warnings, constitutes a rash act done in reckless disregard of the consequences to others. (Para 3 , 4 )
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Patna dismissing an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and the sentence passed on him by the Sessions Judge, Champaran.
2. The appellant was charged with an offence under S. 304 A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Mst. Madilen by contact with an electrically charged naked copper wire which he had fixed up at the back of his house with a view to prevent the entry of intruders into his latrine. The deceased Madilen was an inmate of a house near that of the accused. The wall of the latrine of the house of the deceased had fallen down about a week prior to the day of the occurrence-July 16, 1959, with the result that her latrine had become exposed to public view. Consequently the deceased, among others, started using the latrine of the accursed. The accused resented this and made it clear to them that they did not have his permission to use it and protected against their coming there. The oral warnings, however, proved ineffective and it was for this reasons that on the facts, as found by the courts below, the accused wanted to make entry into his latrine dangerous to the intruders.
3. Though some of the facts alleged by the prosecution were disputed by the accursed, they are now concluded by the findings of the courts below and are no longer open to challenge and, indeed, learned Counsel for the appellant did not attempt to controvert them. The facts, as found, are that in order to prevent the ingress of persons like the deceased into his latrine by making such ingress dangerous (1) the accused fixed up a copper wire across the passage leading up to his latrine, (2) that this wire was naked and uninsulated and carried current from the electrical wiring of his house to which it was connected, (3) there was no warning that the wire was live, (4) the deceased managed t o pass into the latrine without contacting the wire but that as she came out her hand happened to touch it and she got a shock as a result of which she died soon after. On these facts the Courts below held that the accused was guilty of an offence under S. 304A of the Indian Penal Code which enacts:
"304A. 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 accused made a suggestion that the deceased had been sufficiently warned and the facts relied on in this connection were two : (1) that at the time of the accident it was past daybreak and there was therefore enough light, and (2) that an electric light was bunging some distance away. But it is manifest that neither of these could constitute warning as the condition of the wire being charged with electric current could not obviously be detected merely by the place being properly lit.
4. The voltage of the current passing through the naked wire being high enough to be lethal, there could be no dispute that charging it with current of that voltage was a rash act done in reckless disregard of the serious consequences to people coming in contact with it.
5. It might be mentioned that the accused was also charged before the learned Sessions Judge with an offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code but on the finding that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased he was acquitted of that charge.
6. The principal point of law which appears to have been argued before the learned Judges of the High Court was that the accused had a right of private defence of property and that the death was caused in the course of the exercise of that right. The learned Judges repelled this defence and, in our opinion, quite correctly. The right of private defence of property which is set out in S. 97 of the Indian Penal code is, as that section itself provides, subject to the provisions of S. 99 of th
