The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the actions of the accused, where accused No. 1 was found not negligent and acquitted, while accused Nos. 4 and 5 were found guilty of causing death by negligence under Section 304A of IPC.

B.V. PINTO, J.-These two appeals arise out of the same Sessions case and therefore they are disposed of by this common Judgment, while Criminal Appeal No. 721/2006 has been filed on behalf of accused No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 709/2006 has been filed on behalf of accused Nos. 4 and 5, being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14.03.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Davanagere in SC No. 107/2003, convicting the appellants for the offences under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. Parties in this Judgment would be referred to according to their ranking before the trial Court.

3. Accused No. 1 had taken a contract from Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as 'KPTCL' for short) for erection of electrical connection in Kukkawada range of the said department. On 26.05.2002, being a Sunday, the department employees were on leave. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No. 1 had entrusted the work to accused No. 2 for doing such work on the current lines without taking permission from the KPTCL. While so working, though it was necessary to take care that the current flow in the place where the work was going on and the same ought to have been supervised, by negligently allowing the current to flow on the said line, while workers were still working, one worker by name Palanaik who was on the job got electrocuted and died instantaneously, thereby all the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were charge sheeted for having committed offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Accused persons were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate. As the offence was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, matter was committed to the Sessions Court by the learned Magistrate.

4. During the trial, the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge has examined in all 20 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 20. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However by the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting accused Nos. 2 and 3, found accused No. 1, 4 and 5 guilty of the offences for which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them as aforestated. It is this Judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed which has been challenged by the appellants in these two appeals.

5. The prosecution in this case commenced with filing of the complaint by PW. 19 as per Ex.P16 before the Hadadi police Station, Shimoga. It is stated in the complaint that, the electrocution has happened at Kukkawada area on 26.05.2002, while the contractor was executing his work. It is stated in the said complaint that, on 26.05.2002, when an Electrical Contractor by name M/s S.R. Electricals was executing his work, one Palanaik had died due to the electrocution. In this connection, the information was given stating that the workers of Shiva Rice Mills situated at Kariganur Cross had dragged the Gang Operated Switch (herein after referred to as GOS) negligently and that due to the said act, the current passed and the worker died. The owner of the said rice mill is one of K.S. Ratnamma wife of the Devendrappa of Kagariganur cross. The work entrusted to the contractor was to give the electrical connection for drinking water project at Kariganur Station and that current was passing from Thyavanige distribution centre towards Kagariganur. On 26.05.1992, the electrical contractor was to do the said work and for that G.O.S near the rice mill was to be kept open and the contractor had kept one person to lay a watch on the said GOS. However, due to negligence of the aforesaid workers of the Rice Mills, the incident happened. On the basis of the aforestated complaint, the Hadadi police registered the case in Crime No. 56/2002 on 27.05.2002 for the offence under Section 304Part II of IPC and FIR as pe