The central legal point established in the judgment is the prosecution's burden to prove the accused's liability beyond reasonable doubt and the limited application of vicarious liability in criminal offenses.

ORDER :

V. Srishananda, J.

1. Accused No. 1 in CC No. 5718/2003 is in revision challenging the order passed by the learned JMFC, III Court, Mangaluru by judgment dated 27.1.2006 whereby the Revision Petitioner - first accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and further ordered to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 86/2006 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

2. The parties are referred to as accused and prosecution as per their original ranking for the sake of convenience.

3. The germane facts of the case unfold as under:-

The Revision Petitioner is the owner of Manjunatha Re-trading Rubber Industries [hereinafter referred to as the 'Establishment'] situated at Kaikamba of Kulashekara village, Mangaluru. In respect of an incident that occurred on 11.3.2003 at about 3.00 p.m., the tank fixed to the boiler to flow water kept in the said industry was exploded all of a sudden and piece of rod came into contact with one Durgappa shetty, the worker of the said industry, had sustained injuries and died at the spot. A case in crime came to be registered in Crime No. 71/2003. It is alleged in the said complaint that Subramanya Rao is the owner of the said Establishment and Sathish naik was the supervisor of the said industry and because of their negligence, the tank fixed to the boiler to flow water from the tank exploded and thus sought for taking action against the accused. Police conducted a detailed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused persons named in the first information. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and secured the presence of the accused persons and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Hence, trial was held.

4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined 15 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 15 and relied on documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-16. Accused statement as contemplated u/s. 313 Cr.PC, was recorded and thereafter, defence lead evidence by examining two witnesses namely Subramanya and Rama as DWs. 1 & 2 and relied on 4 documents on their behalf which were exhibited and marked as Exs. D-1 to D-4. Learned Magistrate on conclusion of the recording of the evidence, heard the parties in detail and passed an order of conviction against the accused persons as referred to supra.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused persons preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 86/2006 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. The learned Judge in the first appellate court secured the records and after hearing the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the entire materials on record, upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the accused persons and dismissed the appeal. It is those judgments which are the subject matter of this Revision Petition.

6. Sri M.R.C. Manohar, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that both the courts have grossly erred in not appreciating the case so as to attract the offence alleged against the present Revision Petitioner. He vehemently contended that there is no iota of evidence placed by the prosecution to establish the nexus between the Revision Petitioner and the incident that occurred within the premise of the Establishment. The incident occurred in the Establishment where the boiler got exploded. He also pointed out that just because the Revision Petitioner is the son of the ipso facto, result in attracting the criminal liability, but which aspect of the matter is totally ignored by both the Courts and sought for allowing Revision Petition.

7. Per contra, Sri