The judgment established the requirement for a high degree of negligence and the need for mens rea to be shown for an act to amount to criminal negligence under Section 304-A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

The present petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi arising out of FIR No.264/2007, registered under Sections 304-A/34 IPC at Police Station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

2. Initially, vide order dated 09.01.2018, the Metropolitan Magistrate had framed charge under Sections 304-A/34 IPC against all the accused persons. In a revision filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the Sessions Court set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and discharged the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

3. The facts as noted by the Courts below are, that on 29.04.2007, the injured namely, Dashrath was working as a labourer under the supervision of accused persons, namely, Ravi Gulati and Ram Kailash and while working, the injured came in contact with an electric wire as the iron pole he was affixing got in contact with the overhead BSES high tension wire resulting into his death.

4. During investigation, on 30.04.2007, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of Ram Sagar and Ram Pukar, who were also working at the site along with the injured on the said day.

5. Ram Sagar stated that he along with Ram Pukar and Dashrath was working with Raja Tent House. On 29.04.2007, they were decorating the tent at Sahni Farm House under the supervision of Ram Kailash and Ravi Gulati. Dashrath was putting the poles for the tent and complained to the Supervisor Ram Kailash and the Manager Ravi Gulati as it was difficult for him to put the poles alone. However, both Ram Kailash and Ravi Gulati asked him to hurry up else he would not be paid. It was stated that no safety kit was provided to the labourers for doing the aforesaid work. At about 3:30 p.m., while Dashrath was putting up the pole, he lost his balance as a result of which the pole got in touch with the high tension electric wire. Dashrath got electrocuted and later succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. It was stated that Dashrath had died due to negligence of Ram Kailash and Ravi Gulati.

6. To the similar effect is the statement of Ram Pukar.

7. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Ram Kailash and Ravi Gulati before the Court of ACMM, who vide order dated 16.01.2009, directed further investigation against the present respondent, who is the owner of the farm house as well as Satish Kumar, the owner of the Raja Tent and Decorators.

8. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer recorded a supplementary statement of Ram Sagar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 03.01.2011 where it was stated that the respondent despite having knowledge of hightension wires, overlooked everything and got the tent placed below the high-tension wires. The statement further mentioned that the respondent as well as the owner of the tent house were responsible. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the Investigating Officer filed supplementary charge-sheet where it was stated that the electricity wire was 20 ft above the ground and the height of the tent was about 18 ft. 8 inches. It was further mentioned in the charge-sheet that since the respondent was organizing functions, therefore, he was responsible.

9. Learned APP for the State submitted that since the accident had occurred at the premises of the respondent, therefore, he is liable to be tried for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent urged that no allegation had come against the respondent in the initial statement given by the aforementioned persons. He submitted that as per the initial charge-sheet, neither presence of the respondent at the spot nor his role in the incident was mentioned. It was also urged that the aforesaid witnesses were the labourers of Raja Tent and Decorators and the respondent had no privity of contract with the deceased.

10. The scope of revision under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and the guiding principles to exercise the power a