Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. Somashekar, J.
Jagannatha @ Muniyappa S/o Late Nanjappa - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka By Hoskote Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.766 of 2010
Decided On : 16-06-2020
For the Appellant :Sri. Dinesh Kumar K. Rao Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Rohith. B.J. HCGP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the court's reliance on consistent and reliable evidence to secure a conviction.
Headnote:
304A IPC - Conviction and Acquittal - Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003 - [ELECTROCUTION] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [Section 304A of IPC, Section 429 of IPC, Section 135(E) of the Karnataka Electricity Act] - The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 429 of IPC and Section 135 of the Karnataka Electricity Act, resulting in the acquittal of the accused for these charges. The court also found that the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt under Section 304A of IPC, leading to the acquittal of the accused for this charge as well.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was electrocuted while returning home, leading to a complaint and subsequent registration of a case against the accused for various offences. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 304A of IPC but acquitted him for the other charges. The appellant challenged the judgment, arguing that the evidence was not consistent and reliable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges under Section 304A of IPC, Section 429 of IPC, and Section 135 of the Karnataka Electricity Act. As a result, the accused was acquitted of all charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Karnataka Electricity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of consistent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges brought against him.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused under Section 304A of IPC were set aside. The accused was acquitted of all charges.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes the requirement for proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and reliance on consistent and reliable evidence for conviction (!) . - The trial court's conviction under Section 304A IPC was set aside due to insufficiency and unreliability of evidence, leading to acquittal on all charges (!) (!) . - The appellate court acquitted the accused of Section 304A IPC, Section 429 IPC, and Section 135 of the Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003, and allowed the appeal, with bail bonds, if any, cancelled (!) . - The case facts include death by electrocution of the deceased and a dog, with contested evidence regarding unauthorized electricity connection and inquest procedures (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The evidence relied upon by the prosecution was found inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses, contributing to acquittal (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court notes lack of cogent, positive, consistent, and acceptable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offences (!) . - The inquest and documentary evidence (Exs. P1–P5, MO's) were scrutinized for reliability and chain of custody, influencing the verdict (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The appellate judgment references the conviction and sentence order dated 23.07.2010 in Spl.C.No.102/2006 being set aside (!) . - The appellant was represented by Sri. Dinesh Kumar K. Rao; the respondent by Sri. Rohith B.J. HCGP (!) .
What is the standard of proof required for conviction under Section 304A IPC and related provisions as discussed in this judgment?
What are the grounds on which the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Section 304A IPC, Section 429 IPC, and Section 135 of the Karnataka Electricity Act?
What is the court's ultimate decision regarding the conviction and acquittal of the accused on all charges?
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore rural district, Bangalore in Spl.C.No.102/2006 dated 23.07.2010 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one month.
2. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
It is stated in the complaint filed by one Dairy Muniyappa that deceased Munikrishna being his son after grazing the cattle while he was returning to his house from the Government land at around 6.30 AM on a path road adjacent to the garden land of accused – Jagannath in Sy.No.41 where he had put barbed fencing to the land and had taken direct electric power from the main line, when the deceased was proceeding, he came into contact with barbed fencing live wire and died due to electrocution on 18.1.2006 at 6.30 a.m. and one dog belonging to Ramanjinappa also died at the spot.
3. In pursuance of the death of deceased – Munikrishna and also the dog, the father of deceased Dairy Muniyappa filed a complaint before Hosakote Police. Based upon the complaint, the case in Crime No.38/2006 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 304, 429 of IPC besides Section 135(E) of the Karnataka Electricity Act. Subsequently, the case was taken up for investigation by the Investigation Officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A, 429 of IPC beside Section 135(E) of the Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003 before the committal court.
4. Subsequently the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The charges were framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences where the accused pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequent to recording of the charges, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked several documents as per Exs.P1 to P5 apart from MOs.1 to 3. Subsequently, the incriminating statement appeared against the accused was recorded whereby accused declined the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. The accused did not come forward to adduce any defense evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, the trial Court heard the arguments on the part of the prosecution and the defense counsel and after analyzing the evidence of PWs.1 to 10 and so also the documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under Section 304A of IPC as incorporated in the operative portion of the order. But held that the evidence placed on record by the prosecution does not disclose the ingredients of Section 429 of IPC which is concerned as to prove that mischief was committed by killing Munikrishna and so also held that accused is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of PW.7 who is none other than the brother of deceased Munikrishna who has stated in his evidence that his brother was electrocuted in the plantain garden belonging to the accused but his evidence has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective manner. Further, PW.8 – Ramanjinappa who gave evidence on the part of the prosecution that he is the owner of the street dog which was also electrocuted. But this evidence on the part of the prosecution not only suffer from full of material contradictions but also suffers with omissions with each other. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, in this appeal it requires intervention of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered b
