Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : AJIT J.GUNJAL
B.E.CHANDRASHEKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Crl. P. 1769 Of 2002
Decided On : 07/15/2006
Advocates Appeared :
A.V.Ramakrishna Panicker, S.K.Venkata Reddy
Cases Referred: AIR 1998 SC 128, AIR 1972 SC 1150, (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 679, AIR 1965 SC 1616.
Indian Penal Code - Section 304A - Causing death by negligence - Offence of - There should be an element of rashness and there should be an element of negligence. [Ajit J. Gunjal J.] - It is to be noticed that the rash and negligent act referred to Section 304A means an act which is an immediate cause f death and not an act which can, at best, said to be a remote cause of death. No doubt, the act of negligence would be to the driving of any vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life or likely to cause harm or injury to hurt a person where no harm has actually been caused. The requirement is that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by and rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of death. There must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act of the accused. Settled Principles: "n a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules and regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of rash and negligent act or that any such act was the proximate cause of the death. If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent the additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed (AIR 1972 SC 1150).
Cases Referred: AIR 1998 SC 128, AIR 1972 SC 1150, (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 679, AIR 1965 SC 1616.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition can be summarized as follows : The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are accused 1, 2 and
( 3 ) AT the relevant point of time, when the accident/incident occurred, accused No. 1 was the Chief Engineer of Transmission, accused No. 2 was the Superintending Engineer, srs station and accused No. 3 was the Assistant Executive Engineer. As of now, all the petitioners/accused are no longer in service. The matrix of the prosecution case is that on 5-4-2000 at about 2. 30 p. m. , a couple of children were playing with a ball. During the said play, the ball fell on the roof top of M/s. Sonata Machine Tools Factory. The prosecution case is that the said roof does not have any access either by staircase or by any other means. One of the boys, namely, Raja climbed on to the rooftop and with a plea tried to retrieve the said ball. To his misfortune, the pole came in contact with high Tension Wire which was running on top of the building and he was electrocuted. The said high-tension line is of capacity of 66 KV single line which runs from Peenya onwards and feeds the Neelamangala substation. Suffice it so say that after the pole came in contact with live wire, there was tripping, which would necessarily mean that the power was shut off. Accused No. 3 promptly went to the place and found that the boy was seriously injured. The injured boy was taken to the Victoria hospital. The boy, Raja succumbed to the injuries on 8-4-2000 at about 5. 15 a. m. The brother of the deceased, Raju lodged a complaint with the jurisdiction Peenya Police. Regarding the incident, the Peenya Police registered a case in UDR No. 23/2000. Inquest was done. During the investigation of the UDR case, the Inspector of Peenya Police would file a report and on the basis of the said report, a case is registered in Crime No. 152/2000 by the said Peenya Police for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, investigation is taken up. The statements of the neighbours and that of all the other persons were recorded. A charge-sheet has been filed. The said initiation of proceedings in Crime no. 152/2000 culminated in filing of the charge-sheet is questioned in this petition. 3. The basis for filing of the charge-sheet are on four grounds :
(i) the petitioners have not taken due care and were negligent in allowing the buildings to come up below the Extra-High Tension line in question; (ii) the petitioners have not taken due care and were negligent in not reporting to the officials of the Bangalore City Corporation, when the buildings were coming up below the Extra High Tension Line in question and demolished them; (iii) the petitioners have commissioned power supply to such buildings which have come up under or below the Extra High Tension Line in question; (iv) the petitioners were negligent and have not taken the requisite care to avoid persons climbing on the buildings which had come up on the Extra High Tension Line.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, these four causes have caused the death of the deceased Raja due to the inaction and negligence of the petitioners.
( 5 ) MR. S. K. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made in the complaint as well as the materials collected during the course of the investigation does not prima facie disclose any offence punishable under Sections 427 and 304-A of Indian penal Code. He would submit that even if these allegations and the materials collected by the investigative agency is not controverted, still then, no case is made out to drive home the guilt under Sections 427 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. He would submit that the said High Tension Line
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
