IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY S. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Bhuneshwar Nishad, S/o Shri Bhagwat Ram Nishad – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1320 of 2016
Decided on : 14-12-2023
Electricity Act - Conviction under Section 304/34 of IPC and Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 304/34 of IPC, Section 139 of the Electricity Act, and Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 - The court discussed the distinction between Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC, emphasizing the elements of culpable homicide and death by negligence. The court highlighted key legal provisions and their interpretations, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the conviction under Section 304/34 of IPC and instead convict the appellants under Section 304A of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for causing the death of four persons due to electrocution from an unauthorized electric wire laid at their agriculture field. The trial court convicted them under Section 304/34 of IPC and Section 139 of the Electricity Act, which led to the filing of the present criminal appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the intention or knowledge of the appellants to cause death, leading to the decision to set aside the conviction under Section 304/34 of IPC and instead convict the appellants under Section 304A of IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the death of the deceased persons was homicidal in nature or due to negligence of the appellants, and whether the appellants were authors of the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 304 of IPC and death by negligence under Section 304A of IPC, highlighting the elements and interpretations of these provisions to reach the decision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under Section 304/34 of IPC and instead convicted the appellants under Section 304A of IPC, leading to the release of the appellants based on the time already served in jail.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellants herein calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.7.2016 passed by Special Judge under Electricity Act, District Balod in Special Case No.6/2015 whereby each of the two appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. U/s 304/34 of IPC | Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months. |
| 2. U/s 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003
| Fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo R.I. 5 months. |
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court are that:-
(ii) The matter was reported to Police Station Gurur by PW-1 Dayaram and Merg Intimations in respect of the death of Bhupendra Kumar, Nomendra Sahu, Kuleshwar Gond & Tomesh Halba were recorded vide Exhibits P-1 to P-4. On the basis of Merg Intimations, FIR (Exhibit P-5) was registered against the two appellants herein for the offence punishable under Section 304/34 of IPC on the ground that at Village Pond, on 20.4.2015, between 7-9 p.m., when cattle of Bhupendra Sahu did not return home, he along with Nomendra Sahu, Kuleshwar Gond and Tomesh Halba went to search for his cattle at village fields and there they came in contact with live/ naked electricity wire laid by the appellants at their field to protect the crops from animals, and died on the spot due to electrocution.
(iii) During the investigation, it was found that appellants were farming on the land bearing Khasra No.136/2, area 0.79 hectare and Khasra No.135, 136, area 0.44, 0.56 hectare situated at Patwari Halka No.36 and irrigating their field by taking temporary electricity connection and, on the date and time of offence, they unauthorisedly used 6mm naked centering wire all around their fields and flown electric current through the said naked electric wire with which the four deceased persons herein came in contact and died due to electrocution. Spot Map of the place of incident was prepared vide Exhibit P-6 and Nazri Naksha prepared by Patwari is Exhibit P-6. Appellants were arrested vide Exhibits P-8 & P-9. Memorandum Statement of A-1 Bhuneshwar Nishad was recorded vide Exhibit P-10 pursuant to which, electric boards, centering wire, electric wire, iron poles, wooden poles, etc., were recovered vide Exhibit P-11. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Exhibits P-32 to P-35 and the dead-bodies of Bhupendra Sahu, Tomesh Halba, Nomendra Sahu and Kuleshwar Gond were subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. G.R. Rawate (PW-8) vide Exhibits P-23 to P-26 in which the cause of death of the four deceased persons has been shown to be, due to paralysis of medullary respiratory center and cardiac arrest and their death was stated to be accidental in nature.
(iv) Vide Exhibit P-20, Junior Engineer Kuleshwar Prasad Vaika gave his report that though temporary electricity connection was provided to the appellants for agriculture and irrigation purpose, but they unauthorisedly used centering wire and flown electric current through the same all around their field leading to the causalities and thereby the appellants flouted regulations 12 &
Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra
Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh
Arumugam v. State (2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab and another
Juggankhan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and death by negligence, as defined in Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC, respectively.
(1) Discharge of accused – By its very nature, discharge is at a higher pedestal than acquittal – Acquittal is at end of trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or prosecution....
The distinction between culpable homicide and negligent act hinges on the presence of knowledge about the act likely causing death.
Point of law : A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence.
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove the meeting of minds and fusion of ideas among the accused for the application of Section 34 of IPC, and the consideration of the nature o....
Proving direct causation is essential in establishing liability under Section 304-A IPC for criminal negligence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.